Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill [Lords],

Ordered,
That, in the ease of the London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 92, 231, 232, and 258 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour what is now the position in regard to the transfers from necessitous areas of unemployed people; whether this policy of transfer is still to be carried out; whether the conditions of employment in any of the towns which accepted such transfers have changed for the worse; and, if so, whether he contemplates the return of the people concerned to their own districts?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Transference of unem-
ployed persons from the depressed areas takes place as suitable opportunites of employment for them can be found elsewhere, though progress has been retarded by the adverse employment conditions which have effected nearly all districts. I propose to continue this policy to the fullest extent that is practicable. As regards the last part of the question, the depressed areas are still, generally speaking, the hardest hit by unemployment and proposals for organising any return of workers to them could not be seriously contemplated.

ALIENS.

Captain BULLOCK: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if be proposes to take steps to ascertain the number of aliens who are now receiving unemployment benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I doubt whether the detailed inquiries which would be necessary for this purpose would justify the expense incurred.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is it not most important to know whether we are keeping aliens in this country in our present financial condition, who might be exported to other countries which are still on the gold standard?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would remind my hon. Friend that permits for the admission of aliens are very closely scrutinised. To make a detailed inquiry, as I am asked to do in the question, would involve unnecessary expense.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Surely, those terms do not permit aliens to draw unemployment insurance allowances'?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not debate the matter.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. SIMMONS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the inquiries into the possibility of providing adequate Employment Exchange facilities to serve the steadily growing population of the Erdington Division initiated by his predecessor are being pursued, and when a definite pronouncement may be expected on the matter?

Sir H. BETTERTON.: These inquiries are being pursued both in relation to Erdington and to other districts in the
Birmingham area, as to which requests for additional Exchange accommodation have been received. I cannot at present say when a decision will be reached.

STATISTICS.

Mr. POTTS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of transitional benefit within the Barnsley Exchange; and, if possible, the number that will be affected within the County Borough of Barnsley separately, distinguished from the total Exchange area that will be affected under the Economies Bill?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 21st September, 1931, there were on the register of the Barnsley Employment Exchange 2,783 persons, including 211 women, with claims authorised for transitional benefit. Separate statistics are not available in respect of persons residing within the County Borough of Barnsley.

Mr. POTTS: Is it not possible to obtain the information with regard to the Borough of Barnsley separate from the general Exchange figures, which include parts of the West Riding?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will see if that can be done, and, if so, I will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. DAY: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the estimated number of persons in Great

Persons on the registers of certain. Employment Exchanges.


—
Frome.
Midsomer Norton.
Keynsham.
Chew Magna.


Number of persons with claims admitted or under consideration at 21st September, 1931.
319
391
170
94


Number of men and women with claims authorised for transitional benefit at 21st September, 1931.
30
157
3
21


Number of men and women in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.
36
42
10
9


There is no Employment Exchange at Radstock or Peasdown.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 19 and 20.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will state the number of persons in receipt of transitional benefit signing on at each of the local Employment Exchanges supervised from Wigan and at the Exchanges supervised from St.

Britain insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts whose salaries or wages are less than three pounds per week?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that the available information is insufficient to enable a satisfactory estimate to be made.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman not give us any idea?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This question was constantly before my predecessor, and she came to the conclusion, rightly, I think, that anything like a mere guess, which is all that we can do, would be of no use to the hon. Member.

Mr. GOULD: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons within the areas of the Frome, Radstock, Midsomer Norton, Keynsham, Chew Magna, and Peasdown Employment Exchanges at present in receipt of unemployment,benefit, and the number at present in receipt of transitional benefit who under the Government's proposals will be referred to the public assistance committee for calculation of their rate of benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Helens; and the number that will come under the needs test by the operation of the National Economy Bill;

(2) the number of women signing on at each of the Employment Exchanges supervised from Wigan and those super-
vised from St. Helens, specifying the number that are married; and the number on transitional benefit?

Persons on the registers of certain Employment Exchanges.


—
St. Helens.
Prescot.
Wigan.
Standish.
Upholland.


Number of persons with claims authorised for transitional benefit at 21st September, 1931—







Men
2,725
172
3,411
107
173


Women
190
20
1,057
62
101


Number of persons in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years







Men
890
118
965
46
46


Women
210
39
419
23
53


Number of women on the registers at 21st September, 1931.
1,212
210
4,479
255
549


Number of married women on the registers at 20th July, 1931.*
434
63
1,830
87
166


* The latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. BATEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the total number of unemployed in the county of Durham who will have to appear before the public assistance committee when the proposed Order in Council comes into force?

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons in the county of Durham at present in receipt of unemployment benefit paid for the week ended 8th August; and the number in receipt of transitional benefit who, under the Government's proposal, will be referred to the public assistance committee for the calculation of their rate of benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Statistics are not available showing the number now in receipt of benefit who received benefit during the week ended 8th August, 1931. At 21st September, 1931, there were 148,511 persons with claims admitted or under consideration on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the County of Durham, including 33,597 men and 1,725 women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. Of those in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, 22,340 men and 1,299 women had received 156 days or

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

more in their current benefit years. I should point out, in view of the terms of question No. 28, that persons claiming transitional payments will not necessarily have to appear before a committee.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the cumber of unemployed persons registered at the Lincoln Employment Exchange who will be required to submit their claims for unemployment insurance benefit to the Poor Law authorities; and if he can state separately the numbers of men and women claimants who will be affected by the terms of the National Economy Bill?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 21st September, 1931, there were 4,445 men and 386 women with claims admitted or under consideration on the register of the Lincoln Employment Exchange, of whom 1,114 men and 67 women had claims authorised for transitional benefit. Of those in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, 668 men and 55 women had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.

Mr. DUKES: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons are registered at Warrington and how
many of these have drawn 26 or more weeks' benefit during the present benefit year, giving the figures for the last week for which both sets are available or for which a reliable estimate can be made?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 21st September, 1931, there were 8,351 persons on the register of the Warrington Employment Exchange. This number included 839 men and 128 women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. Of those in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, 896 men and 242 women had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed in the borough of Islington to the latest convenient date, and the number now receiving transitional benefit?

Claims to Benefit disallowed by certain Courts of Referees during the period 9th June, 1931, to 14th September, 1931.


Ground of Disallowance.
Court of Referees.


Pontefract.
Castleford.
Goole.


First statutory condition (juveniles only)
4
7
—


Less than 8 contributions paid in past two years and less than 30 contributions paid at any time (adults only).
3
—
—


Employment left voluntarily without just cause
22
45
29


Not normally insurable and/or will not normally seek to obtain livelihood by means of insurable employment.
22
71
15


Employment lost through misconduct
11
49
10


Failure or refusal to apply for or accept suitable employment, or failure to carry out written directions.
29
23
43


Not unemployed
23
35
2


Not capable of work, or not available for work
11
57
1


Other grounds
9
90
6


Total
134
377
106

GERMANY, BELGIUM AND FRANCE.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what are the present rates of unemployment pay for men, women, boys, and girls in Germany, Belgium and France; and what family allowances are given in addition?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards Germany, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 16th July last to a

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 14th September, 1931, there were 15,978 persons resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Islington on the registers of Employment Exchanges. The number of persons receiving transitional benefit resident in that borough is not available, but at 21st September there were 2,270 such persons on the registers of the Holloway and King's Cross Exchanges.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for unemployment benefit have been disallowed by the courts of referees at Pontefract, Castleford, and Goole during the past three months, and the reasons for such disallowance?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). In Belgium and France, unemployment insurance is voluntary, and I am not in possession of information as to the rates of benefit generally paid, which vary according to the unemployment insurance fund with which the worker is connected.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman consider circulating his reply
to hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite, as an object lesson of what other countries are doing?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman send the information regarding the insurance paid to boys in Germany to the other House, especially to Lord Buckmaster?

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.

Mr. GOULD: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the limit of 26 weeks' unemployment benefit and the means test, as proposed by the Economy Bill, will be applied to disabled ex-service men who have not been able to compete on favourable terms in the labour market?

Mr. EDE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is proposed to include income from war pensions, workmen's compensation, light rate compensation, and similar sources among the means which may debar an applicant with 26 weeks' benefit in a benefit year from further benefit; and, in cases where workmen's compensation has been paid as a lump sum, will a computation of its weekly income value be included?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is contemplated that in considering the case of an applicant for transitional payments, public assistance authorities should take all his circumstances into account in the same manner as they would if they were dealing with an able-bodied applicant for public assistance. The position of men in receipt of disability pensions requiring public assistance was carefully considered by the late Minister of Health and it is laid down in his circular of January, 1930, that
where certain classes of income are concerned, such, for example, as disability pensions or blind pensions, the disability in respect of which the pension has been awarded may be such as to call for a greater measure of assistance than would be normally appropriate.
I should point out also that disabled ex-service men are eligible for insurance benefit on paying 10 contributions instead of the normal 30, and the reduced contribution qualification normally applying to transitional benefit is in their case abolished altogether. As regards Workmen's Compensation cases, I understand that it is the practice of the public, assistance authorities to treat such
cases when they consider it proper on lines similar to those laid down with regard to disability pensions.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, in regard to men who are partially incapacitated as the result of accident while following their normal occupation, any sums received as compensation will be ignored by the public assistance committee in assessing need?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would advise the hon. Member to look at the circular issued by the late Minister of Health of which I will send him a copy. So far as I am concerned, I have no intention whatever of interfering with the sympathetic administration which he then laid down.

Mr. EDE: Is the hon. Gentleman going to take steps to secure uniformity or is he going to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the public assistance committees? Will he take no action in eases where the public assistance committees are not sympathetic?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In this matter, I am pursuing exactly the policy which was followed by the last Minister of Health.

Mr. EGAN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, at the expiration of 26 weeks' benefit, the payment is continued until the public assistance committee's decision is known; and, if so, at what rate?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In the initial stages it is proposed to continue these payments, pending assessment, at the full revised rate of benefit, provided that the claimant satisfies the other conditions which are applicable. Subsequently, arrangements will be made to continue payments in case of emergency for a short period at the appropriate rate in order to allow time for assessment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What will be the position where a public assistance committee refuses to carry out the regulations?

Sir H. BETTERTON: We shall take every precaution to ensure that the difficulty indicated in the question and the supplementary question is dealt with.

Mr. EGAN: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, when an unemployed
man exhausts the 26 weeks' benefit, his case is referred to the court of referees before being sent to the public assistance committee for assessment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If in such cases a claim for transitional payment is made and a question arises as to satisfaction of the conditions, other than the needs test, for such payments, this question will be decided by a court of referees. Otherwise there will be no question for a court of referees to decide.

Mr. EGAN: Does that mean that the case will be dealt with by the court of referees before it is passed on to the public assistance committee?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Any question which may arise as to satisfaction of the conditions is clearly a case for the court of referees.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for unemployed men and women on transitional benefit to be notified two weeks before it ceases in order that time may be given to make the necessary adjustments of expenditure in the domestic budget?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have every sympathy with the object of this question and will do my best to carry it out.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are many cases of unemployed men on transitional benefit who are at present, and have been for many years, buying their houses by instalments, and who on account of the new proposals as to transitional benefit are anxious to know what their position will be with regard to the means test; and whether he will circularise public assistance committees for their guidance in this matter?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am aware of the cases referred to. The obligations of such a man whether by way of payment of instalments of purchase price or of rent are taken into account by the public assistance authorities in assessing his needs for purposes of assistance. The same practice will apply in regard to persons in receipt of transitional payments.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the hon. Gentleman any information showing
that men who are on the dole have started purchasing their houses? [Interruption.]

BENEIFIT.

Mr. RAYNES: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that an organised and well conducted demonstration of unemployed people attended the Labour Exchange at Derby, on Monday last, and presented a written protest against the cuts in unemployed benefit, and that the manager of the Exchange declined to forward that protest to the Ministry; and whether he will give instructions that such protests are to be forwarded?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made in this matter and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to use the powers conferred upon the Minister of Labour by the National Economy Bill to meet any increase in the cost of living by increasing Unemployment Insurance benefits without delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir. The powers under the Act would not enable such action to be taken.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the great stress which is being laid upon the argument that the unemployed would be 1 per cent. better off after the cuts than they were in 1929, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to ensure that they shall not be worse off than in 1929; and what is the machinery for that purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: That point was fully answered in a recent Debate on the subject.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether, in the event of a substantial increase in the cost of living affecting unemployed persons, the Government will be prepared to consider the position?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a purely hypothetical question.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of recent developments, cannot the right hon. Gentleman now make some concession in the direction of restoring unemployment benefit to the old figure?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Following the right hon. Gentleman's reply regarding the cost of living, may I ask if he is aware that rents, which enter largely into the budgets of working-class housewives, have in many cases increased by 100 per cent.; and what provision is he going to make to change that state of affairs so as to fit in with his own statement about 1½ per cent.?

WORK SCHEMES, DURHAM.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men are at present employed on work schemes in the county of Durham which have received financial assistance from the State; and what are the total commitments since June, 1929, giving the liability of the State and local authorities, respectively?

Sir H. BETTERTON: On the 28th August, the latest date for which information is available, 4,864 men were employed directly on the site of schemes being undertaken in the county of Durham with assistance from the various grant-making Departments. The estimated total cost of schemes submitted by local authorities in the county since 1st June, 1929, is £4,708,943. The proportion of assistance given from State funds varies with the nature of the scheme, and I am not in a position to give the amounts borne by the State and local authorities respectively.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Can the hon. Gentleman give approximate us any idea?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In this and similar questions I always feel that it is wise to give figures upon which one can stand. A mere guess may be very misleading to the hon. Member.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: I do not ask for a guess. I am asking for some approximate figure.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot give it.

Mr. BATEY: Do the figures given apply to the whole county of Durham, including the county boroughs?

Sir H. BETTERTON: They apply to the county of Durham; that is the whole county.

Mr. BATEY: Does that include the boroughs as well?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I think so.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Including the borough of Sunderland?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think it includes the borough of Sunderland, but, if not, I will let the hon. Member know. At present I am advised that it includes the whole county.

REGULATIONS.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the new regulations for the guidance of public assistance committees in the administration of unemployment insurance transitional benefit under the National Economy Bill have been completed; and on what date they are to be laid before Parliament?

Mr. LAWSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will make the new regulations issued to the public assistance committees available to Members of the House?

Sir H. BETTERTON: These regulations cannot be made until the relevant Order-in-Council has been made. The regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will these regulations contain an instruction for uniformity of administration in connection with transitional benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member had better wait and see the regulations.

Mr. TAYLOR: No. I want to know whether it is the policy of the Government to promote uniformity in administration?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member means whether we are going to ask public assistance committees to have some uniform scale the answer is in the negative.

Mr. TAYLOR: No. A considerable number of Poor Law authorities, about half of them, do not grant relief to able-bodied unemployed men, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will see that the position of these men is protected in the regulations?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have told the hon. Member that there will be no difference in policy in this matter from that
contained in the circular issued by the late Minister of Health. If the hon. Member will read that circular and has then any further questions to ask, perhaps he will put them down.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate laying these regulations while Parliament is sitting?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In regard to that matter, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) the night before last raised what I thought were very important questions which would have to be considered. We are considering the points raised, and, until they have been considered, obviously we cannot lay the regulations.

EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, CANNING TOWN.

Mr. THORNE: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the conditions prevailing at the Employment Exchange, Freemasons Road, Custom House, he will consider the advisability of erecting a shelter to protect registered applicants from bad weather; if he is aware of the absence of any sanitary convenience, either for men or women, in or adjacent to the Exchange; and if he will take steps to remedy this?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If applicants attending the Canning Town Employment Exchange in Freemasons Road, would observe the timing system, there should be no need for them to wait outside the building. I cannot undertake responsibility for the provision of public conveniences in connection with Employment Exchanges but I understand that public conveniences are available for men and women 150 yards from the Exchange and for men only at 600 yards distance.

ADMINISTRATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether any Minister is specially charged with the duty of preparing schemes for the relief of unemployment; and to whom should questions be addressed in Parliament on matters of general policy dealing with unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is for the moment in the negative. Each De-
partmental Minister will be responsible under the Cabinet for matters arising within his own field, and questions relating to particular matters should be addressed to the Departmental Ministers concerned. When general policy is involved, the questions should be addressed to me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the first part of the question, is it intended to appoint a special Minister when the policy has been settled?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the policy is settled, the consequence will be taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the policy be settled?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original reply, seeing that this winter we are going to have more unemployment than formerly, will the right hon. Gentleman bend his mind to making some provision to meet that situation when it does occur?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a new point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question on the Paper.

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether unemployed workers will be automatically deprived of National Health Insurance benefits should the public assistance committee, under the means test, deprive them of further unemployment benefit; and, if not, what steps will be taken to keep them entitled to health insurance benefit and, in particular, whether their health insurance contributions will still be payable by the State?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. So long as a person remains insured under the National Health Insurance Acts he will continue to be entitled to benefits in accordance with the provisions of those Acts and will not be subject to penalties for arrears of contributions in respect of weeks for which satisfactory proof of unemployment is produced.

Colonel BROADBENT: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether an unem-
ployed person, who has received 26 weeks unemployment benefit, and who is subsequently transferred on to transitional unemployment benefit, will have his National Health Insurance contribution card franked each week by the public assistance committee whilst in receipt of such benefit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the circumstances stated the unemployed person would be entitled to have his health insurance contribution card franked in the usual way at the Employment Exchange. It is not proposed to transfer to public assistance committees the duty of franking cards.

Colonel BROADBENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable confusion not only among the unemployed but also among the medical profession on this point; and will he take steps to see that the matter is made quite plain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of that, but I hope that the answer which I have given will serve to make it plain.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR INDUSTRY (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. PERRY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the alterations in percentages in salaries, wages, and hours in the motor industry during the two years ended 31st July, 1931; and how many agreements have been established under which provision is made that, when dividends on ordinary shares reach 100 per cent., reductions of salaries or wages previously made shall be restored or an increase on existing rates conceded?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no information as to salaries in this industry, but particulars of certain revisions, operative as from 6th July last, in rates of pay for workpeople on overtime, nightshifts, and systems of payment by results, were given on page 255 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for July. No other general changes in rates of wages, and no changes in normal weekly hours of labour, have been reported to the Ministry of Labour since July, 1929. As regards the last part of the question, I have no knowledge of any such agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Captain BULLOCK: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens are now in this country under licence for a restricted period for the purpose of taking part in any industrial work?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of aliens, excluding domestic servants, at present working in the country under permits, is approximately 3,600.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES).

Sir RENNELL RODD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in cases where Members of Parliament, parliamentary candidates, and their wives do not reside in the constituencies contested at elections their admissibility to be placed upon the absent voters list for the constituency in which they do reside is at present the subject of varying decisions by the registration officers in different districts; and if he will consider an amendment of the existing law which would more clearly define the connotation in this respect of the terms occupation, service, or employment in Schedule I (16) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I am aware that in some constituencies claims of Members of Parliament and Parliamentary candidates to be placed on the absent voters' list in the constituency in which they reside have been admitted by Registration Officers, but the great, majority of Registration Officers, I understand, have disallowed such claims. I am afraid I can hold out no prospect of legislation being introduced to settle the doubt which appears to exist as to the construction of the statute, but the point is one which can be brought before the courts on an appeal from the refusal of a Registration Officer to allow a claim.

Mr. W. THORNE: If there is union in the Cabinet why cannot the Government bring in legislation?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are Members of Parliament to have no voice at all in the government of the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS (SALARIES).

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to recommend the councils of cities and boroughs in England to consider the question of making cuts in the salaries of recorders and other judicial officers paid out of borough funds in order to secure equality of treatment with His Majesty's Judges?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As respects local expenditure such as this, which does not involve any charge upon the Exchequer, the attitude of the Government has been defined in a circular issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the 11th September; and I should not feel justified in going beyond the terms of that circular.

Mr. KELLY: Will anything that the Government do also apply to King's Counsel?

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregate amount anticipated to be saved by the reduction of 20 per cent. of judges' salaries?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The saving involved in the reduction of the salaries of His Majesty's Judges is approximately £50,000 in a full year.

Sir C. RAWSON: Does that apply to the High Court Judges only?

DEATH DUTIES.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount each year received by the Treasury for Death Duties from the commencement of their imposition to the year ended the 5th April, 1931, with the rates current for each year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I must point out to the hon. Member that in addition to the Estate Duty which dates from 1894 the Death Duties include the Legacy and Succession Duties which date back to the close of the 18th century. If, as I imagine, the hon. Member is concerned with the yield and rates in more recent
times he will find the information in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. In particular I would refer him to the 65th and 73rd reports which contain statistics covering the years from 1910 to 1930.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish an account of the amount received in Death Duties and the rates?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the last part of my answer in which I referred him to the reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, dealing with the years 1910 to 1930; he will get the information there.

Mr. SAMUEL: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury can state, approximately, what new savings, for the purpose of building up and accumulating fresh capital for investment, or industry, have been made by the Income Tax and Super-tax payers to compensate for the money received from Death Duties by the Government and spent as income?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I can do no more than refer my hon. Friend to the investigation into national saving made in their Report by the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation.

TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of taxation per head, expressed in sterling, for the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States, respectively, for the year 1913–14 and for each year from 1921 to date?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WISE: In circulating the figures will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption].

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We should get on much more quickly if hon. Gentlemen did not make so much noise. Mr. Wise!

Mr. WISE: In preparing the figures, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give, if possible, the comparative taxation at various incomes so
as to get comparable figures rather than a general average?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The tabular statement which I shall circulate is a full reply to the question on the Paper.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Does it include local and provincial taxes as well as national taxes?

TAXATION IN STERLING.


—
U.K.
France.
Germany.
Italy.
U.S.A.





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1913 or 1913–14
…
…
3
11
4
3
7
0
1
10
8
2
2
8
11
7
11


1921 or 1921–22
…
…
18
1
10
8
4
5
—*
3
9
0
8
9
0


1922 or 1922–23
…
…
17
8
1†
8
11
3
—*
3
9
10
6
9
5


1923 or 1923–24
…
…
16
2
5†
6
18
2
—*
3
14
11
6
9
11


1924 or 1924–25
…
…
15
9
0†
7
18
7
6
5
3
3
15
1
6
4
6


1925 or 1925–26
…
…
15
2
8†
6
17
0
5
6
11
3
10
2
6
2
7


1926 or 1926–27
…
…
14
11
8†
5
19
7
5
11
2
3
2
9
6
3
6


1927 or 1927–28
…
…
15
6
3†
8
18
5
6
11
3
4
6
1
5
16
10


1928 or 1928–29
…
…
15
0
8†
9
11
2
6
19
11
4
11
5
5
14
3


1929 or 1929–30
…
…
14
15
10†
9
7
1
7
7
10
4
8
2
5
13
8


1930 or 1930–31
…
…
15
6
6†
10
1
8
7
17
0
6
13
0
6
3
5


1931 or 1931–32
…
…
Original

















15
12
11†
10
0
2
7
0
5
4
9
7
5
18
2





Revised

















15
17
11†














In the case of Germany and the U.S.A. the figures refer only to Federal taxes, and local taxation is excluded in all cases. For this and other reasons the figures are not strictly comparable.


* Owing to the depreciation of the paper mark the annual returns of revenue in the years 1921–23 are of no statistical value.


† Excluding Irish Free State.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).

Mr. LONGDEN: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of debt owed by France to Britain on the let September, 1931, and the rate of interest being paid on such debt; whether any proposals were made to the French Government to make an advance to Britain at the same rate of interest when it was required recently to raise credits in Paris; and, if not, why not?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on Tuesday last; the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. WEST: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchquer, seeing that taxpayers with incomes of £50,000 a year are left with a deficit of £3,000 after paying all taxes and insurances, while taxpayers with in-

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member had better wait and see it.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it comparative?—[Interruption.]—May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courtesy of a reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Cooper Rawson!

Following is the tabular statement:

comes of £25,000 after paying similar charges have a surplus of 4,000, whether he will, for the advantage both of the individual and of the State, impose a levy of 50 per cent. on all estates with incomes of £50,000 or over annually?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There must be some flaw in the hon. Member's argument, which seems to reach the absurd conclusion that it is possible to charge the taxpayer less and to collect more from him for the Exchequer.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, according to the figures given by him in this House six or eight days ago, a deficit of £3,000 a year on incomes of £50,000 a year would, if the incomes were reduced to £25,000 a year, pay a surplus of £4,000 to the taxpayer?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is an exact repetition of the hon. Member's question on the Paper, which I described as reaching an absurd conclusion.

Mr. WEST: If the right hon. Gentleman now believes that these figures are an absurdity, why did he give them a week ago when he knew they were absurd?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The figures that I gave are perfectly correct; the absurdity arises from the construction which the hon. Gentleman puts upon them.

GOLD STANDARD.

Mr. THORNE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of countries which have discontinued the Gold Standard since 28th September, 1931; and whether any effort has been made since that date to convene an international conference for the purpose of fixing an international standard of exchange?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Monday last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. THORNE: Now that other countries have definitely decided to go off the Gold Standard, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise, in view of the precarious state of the exchange, that it is time that either this country or some other country brought about an international conference for the purpose of stabilising the exchanges?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I gave a full reply to that question to the hon. Member the other day.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this country is not prepared to convene an international conference on the question because of his intriguing friends behind him?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have expressed more than once the willingness of His Majesty's Government to enter into such a conference.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, NORTHERN IRELAND (PAYMENTS).

Mr. BATEY: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid to the North of Ireland Unemployment Insurance Fund during the last five years; and whether it is proposed to make any reduction this year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I presume that the payments to which the hon. Member refers are those made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to
the Exchequer of Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Acts, 1926 and 1929. The total amount of such payments in respect of the five years from the 1st April, 1926, to the 31st March, 1931, was £2,527,056. The method of calculation of the payments is laid down in the Agreement scheduled to the Act of 1926. The payment last year was £521,484, and while it is impossible at the present stage to give a firm estimate of the payment this year I should anticipate a reduction by at least a hall.

LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN (SALARIES).

Viscount CRANBORNE: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any new arrangement has been made with regard to the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, what it is?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Yes, Sir. The salary of the Attorney-General will be reduced from £7,000 to £2,000 and the salary of the Solicitor-General from £6,000 to £2,000.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the fact that the fees are much greater than the salary, is there any intention to make a reduction of the fees?

Major ELLIOT: That is a most ungenerous way of receiving the announcement of these reductions of salary.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we to understand that the suggestion comes from the other side, that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General should engage in professional blacklegging?

Mr. McSHANE: What are the trade union rates for these fees?

KEW GARDENS (ADMISSION FEE).

Viscount CRANBORNE: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the advisability of reimposing, for Revenue purposes, the admission fee of one penny to Kew Gardens which was abolished in August, 1929?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I have had this question under consideration, and I have decided to reimpose as from Monday morning next this admission fee of a penny, except on students' days (Tuesday and Friday) when the admission fee will
continue to be sixpence, and on the four Bank Holidays (Easter Monday, Whit-Monday, August Bank Holiday and Boxing Day), when admission will be free.

Mr. HARRIS: How much do the Government expect to get from this change?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is estimated that it will bring in at least £3,500.

Mrs. MANNING: Will that fee of one penny be charged when classes from elementary schools are taken to Kew?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will be charged, on the days when it is on, to everybody.

Mr. McSHANE: Will Scrooge be the caretaker?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Will it be another penny to walk on the grass?

COAL REORGANISATION COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN'S SALARY).

Mr. BATEY: 83.
asked the Secretary for Mines what will be the amount of the cut in the salary of the chairman of the Coal Reorganisation Commission?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): Immediately the economy proposals of the Government with regard to the salaries of public servants were announced, the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission asked that during the present emergency an abatement of 20 per cent. (i.e., £1,400 a year) might be made from the salary payable to him. His offer has been gratefully accepted, and the reduction takes effect from to-day.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Was that done in consultation with Mr. Montagu Norman, of the Bank of England?

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS (FREE PARDONS).

Mr. BENSON: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to consider the substitution, in cases of wrongful conviction, for the phrase free pardon of some form of words more in consonance with the facts and less liable to misconstruction?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The only power the Home Secretary has in any such connec-
tion is to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative by way of free pardon. The name free pardon has the sanction of long usage, and it would be very difficult to find a better name that would cover all the classes of cases in which the Prerogative is exercised in this way. I would add that the actual document in which nowadays His Majesty signifies his pleasure is so worded as to avoid the implication that the pardon is of an offence and states that the pardon is of the conviction and its legal consequences.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman got a free pardon from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

VILLAGE SCHOOLS (REORGANISATION).

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the carrying out of the reorganisation of village schools under the Hadow Report into senior and junior schools situated in different villages is likely to cause the disintegration and break up of village life, and that the provision of such schools and alteration of existing schools will result in heavy cost, he will have the carrying out of the Hadow Report suspended, at any rate so far as village schools are concerned?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 1413, which shows, in paragraphs 11 and 12, that the Board will not for the present be prepared to approve new developments involving additional expenditure except in cases of essential need. But I dissent from the view expressed by my hon. Friend that the reorganisation of schools on the lines of the Hadow Report need lead to the break up of village life, or need always involve heavy increased expenditure.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES).

Mr. EDE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state in respect of how many rate-aided secondary schools proposals to increase,
fees have been submitted to the Board since the publication of the Economy Report; and how many children are in attendance at such schools?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Only one such proposal has been received and is under consideration; it is in the nature of a readjustment. The number of pupils in the school concerned is 233.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking the schools to submit proposals, or does he intend to wait until the schools submit them?

Sir D. MACLEAN: To wait until they submit them.

Mr. HARRIS: Will my right hon. Friend discourage the local authorities from raising fees at a time when parents are ill able to afford them?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is a matter entirely for the local authorities concerned.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Is it part of the Government's scheme to reduce the education of working-class children?

Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the authority to which his reply referred?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes, Exeter. I repeat that it is in the nature of a readjustment.

SOUTH SHIELDS (SECONDARY EDUCATION).

Mr. EDE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education by how many places the South Shields County Borough Council propose to increase the facilities for secondary education in their area; and what his decision has been on their application?

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, 1930–31.


Local Education Authority.
Product of penny rate per child.
Rate levied.
Cost per child.
Board of Education Grants per child.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Hastings
…
8
10
1
4.55
294
3
146
11


Eastbourne
…
15
1

10.59
302
4
150
11


Southport
…
11
0
1
1.32
278
0
140
5


Bournemouth
…
16
8

8.09
259
8
129
6


Merthyr Tydfil
…
1
5
5
9
316
1
215
2


Gateshead
…
2
0
3
9.62
215
4
130
3


Stoke-on-Trent
…
1
8
3
10.85
204
11
130
3


Rotherham
…
2
3
3
11.87
256
10
149
4

Sir D. MACLEAN: The local education authority for South Shields proposed, in their revised programme, to increase the secondary school provision in their area by about 200 places, and these proposals have been approved in principle by the Board. If and when detailed particulars are submitted, they will be further considered by the Board in the light of Circular 1413.

Mr. EDE: Am I to take it, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept these proposals?

Sir D. MACLEAN: No, I cannot give any such undertaking until the matter is fully considered.

STATISTICS.

Mr. ARNOTT: 44 and 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) what is the product of a penny rate per child in attendance at elementary schools in the following county boroughs: Hastings, Eastbourne, Southport, Bournemouth, Merthyr Tydfil, Gateshead, Stoke, and Rotherham; and what is the rate levied in each of these boroughs for elementary education;
(2) if he will state the cost per head for each child in attendance at elementary schools and the grants of the Board of Education per child in the following county boroughs: Hastings, Eastbourne, Southport, Bournemouth, Merthyr Tydfil, Gateshead, Stoke, and Rotherham?

Sir D. MACLEAN: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks in these questions.

Following are particulars:

EXPENDITURE (PROPOSED REDUCTIONS).

Mr. THORNE: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of replies he has received to Circular 1413, issued by the Board of Education relating to the Government's measures for effecting economies in educational expenditure; and the number of local authorities which have protested against any economies on the grounds that they would be detrimental to the welfare and education of the children?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Circular 1413 did not call for any reply from local education authorities, though it has, of course, given rise to some correspondence on points of detail. I have received from three local education authorities protests against the Government proposals for reduction in educational expenditure.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of those authorities who have protested?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes. Glamorgan, Barrow and Oldbury; and there was a protest of a provisional kind from West Ham.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government respecting the London Passenger Transport Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to repeat his question on Monday, when I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DIRECTORSHIPS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the case of appointments to directorships of companies by the Government or subject to the approval of the Government, it will be made a condition of the appointment that the recipient shall be subject to Income Tax as one domiciled in Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised, I see no sufficient reason to adopt this suggestion, which might in-
volve an alteration of the Income Tax law. The general position is that membership of a board of directors which meets in this country entails liability to Income Tax in respect of the remuneration of the individual directors.

Commander BELLAIRS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether consideration will be given to making all appointments by the Government to directorships of companies uniform with the plan only adopted at present in Home-grown Sugar, Limited, by which the director surrenders all his fees in return for a fixed payment?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion will be duly borne in mind as occasion may require, but I do not think it would be desirable to lay down any uniform rule on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. WISE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Economic Council is still functioning; whether its membership has been changed since the present Government came into office; and, if so, in what respect and for what reasons?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative, except for a resignation and the ex-officio attendances; the third part does not therefore arise.

Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who has resigned and why he has resigned?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows that this is not a public committee, and that the names of the committee and its work are not disclosed.

Mr. WISE: As the names have been published in the Votes of this House, is there any reason why an answer should not be given to my question?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Prime Minister was about to reply to my supplementary question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. DAY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, when the Rent Restrictions Acts are being extended by the means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, he will consider the introduction of legislation which will have as its object the reduction of rents on house properties to bring them within the pre-War standard of rental?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Members for Bettering (Mr. Perry) and Newcastle West (Mr. Palin).

Mr. DAY: Will such provision be made by Order-in-Council?

PAVING CHARGES.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether the investigation which he is conducting into the paving charges on owner-occupiers of new houses have reached a stage at which definite results can be announced; if not, when does he expect to be in a position to make such an announcement; and in the meantime will he urge local authorities, when drawing up their specifications, to have regard to the reduced circumstances of many owner-occupiers and to the need for economy in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Suggestions for the amendment of the law and practice in regard to private street works are now being considered by the associations of the responsible local authorities, but I am not yet in a position to state when definite results can be announced. As regards the last part of the question, I agree that in this as in other matters local authorities should have regard to the need for economy at the present time and I am suggesting to local authorities who submit applications for sanction to loans for private street works not to proceed now with such works unless there are special reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW CHILDREN (HUNTINGDONSHIRE).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has
been called to the fact that the public assistance committee of Huntingdonshire has, in defiance of the Ministry, decided to convert part of the workhouse at St. Neots into a home for Poor Law children; and whether he proposes to sanction this action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am in communication with the county council as regards the best methods consistent with economy of providing for Poor Law children in the county.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public assistance committee of Huntingdonshire have taken this action purely and solely in the interests of economy?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MILK (BACTERIOLOGICAL STANDARD).

Mr. POTTS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether "he can introduce legislation enforcing a definite bacteriological standard of milk to be fixed and make it an offence for producers and retailers to sell milk not of the fixed standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to introduce any such legislation at the present time.

PUERPERAL FEVER.

Viscount CRANBORNE: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state what steps have been taken to investigate the theories of Mr. Todd with regard to the prevention of puerperal fever submitted to the Ministry of Health; and whether any conclusions have been reached by his Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This matter was referred to the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality and is still under their consideration.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 59.
asked the Minister of Health what percentage of the population of England and Wales died of tuberculosis in the years 1911 to 1930, inclusive?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


England and Wales.—Number of deaths from tuberculosis (all forms) per cent, of the total population, in each of the years 1911–1930.


Year.




Rate.


1911
…
…
…
…
.1468


1912
…
…
…
…
.1372


1913
…
…
…
…
.1352


1914
…
…
…
…
.1361


1915
…
…
…
…
.1515*


1916
…
…
…
…
.1529*


1917
…
…
…
…
.1624*


1918
…
…
…
…
.1694*


1919
…
…
…
…
.1284*


1920
…
…
…
…
.1133*


1921
…
…
…
…
.1126


1922
…
…
…
…
.1121


1923
…
…
…
…
.1062


1924
…
…
…
…
.1058


1925
…
…
…
…
.1038


1926
…
…
…
…
.0961


1927
…
…
…
…
.0972


1923
…
…
…
…
.0928


1929
…
…
…
…
.0959


1930
…
…
…
…
.0898


* Based upon civilian deaths and civilian population.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORTGAGES.

Sir C. RAWSON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is contemplating giving any relief by moratorium or otherwise to mortgagors of property whose mortgages are being called in at the present time and who will experience hardship and loss under the present financial conditions in obtaining the money necessary for payment of the mortgages concerned?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No such measures are in contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are in contemplation for dealing with the financial and economic situation that will arise next February when the stand-still arrangement for German payments comes to an end?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This question is one which engages the constant attention of the Government, but it raises much too
wide issues for it to be possible to deal with it in reply to a Parliamentary question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when we may expect a statement of policy on this question for the information of the many people in many countries who are interested; and when he will give his attention to the question instead of to political intrigues?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot give an answer to that question. The hon. and gallant Member knows that this is a matter in which not alone His Majesty's Government are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER LEE.

Mr. MESSER: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now received a report concerning the condition of the banks of the River Lee at Stamford Hill, Tottenham and what steps are to be taken to effect an improvement?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board that the River Lee rarely overflows at Stamford Hill, Tottenham, but that it does overflow at times of heavy flood lower down at Clapton. The weir at Lee Bridge has, I understand, been enlarged with the object of preventing this flooding. The question of further remedial measures is a matter for the catchment board.

Mr. MESSER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries of the local authority for the purpose of discovering the number of deaths that have resulted from the deplorable state of the river banks at this spot; and will he send a member of the staff of the Ministry to investigate, as the statement in the answer does not appear to be in accordance with the facts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will certainly make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (WIRELESS LICENCES).

Mr. DAY: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General what proposals are now under consideration for an alteration in the present system of deriving revenue from
wireless licences and the allocation of such revenue to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and will he make a statement?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No alterations are proposed.

Mr. DAY: Are the Post Office considering the desirability, as is stated in reports, of allowing advertising to be broadcast?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, not at all.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 81.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider arranging for quarterly payments for wireless licences instead of annual payments as at present, in order to meet the desire of people who find the single demand difficult to meet?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are at present more than 3,750,000 wireless licences in force; and the cost of collecting and accounting for the fees and securing the renewal of the licences is already considerable. The substitution of quarterly for annual licences would practically quadruple this work; and the additional expense would, I think, be out of proportion to the benefit derived by the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS (EMPLOYES UNIFORM).

Mr. KELLY: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the men employed by the Northern Lights Commissioners will receive the money which has been deducted from their wages as uniform allowance?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): No deduction is made from the wages of the men employed by the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners in respect of the uniform issued to them. I would add that the arrangements in regard to the supply of uniform are now the subject of discussion between the Commissioners and the Board of Trade.

Mr. KELLY: I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman gets the information, as there has been an understanding that there would be a refund of this 3s. a
week which has been deducted from wages for uniform, and is there any likelihood of it being refunded at an early date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. There is a difference of practice between the Northern Lights Commissioners and Trinity House. Trinity House give their men an allowance of 3s. a week in lieu of uniform, and the Northern Lights Commissioners give their men uniform and no allowance.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is contemplating the making of orders, in consultation with His Majesty's Treasury, to prevent profiteering in food, coal, and other necessities under Clause 1, Sub-section (3), of the Gold Standard (Amendment) Act, 1931?

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade under what existing legislation he proposes to take action to prevent exploitation of the consumers arising as a result of the depreciation of the pound?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the gap between wholesale and retail prices; and whether, in order to prevent the exploitation of consumers, he will take immediate action to stop any increase of a retail price unless a sufficient rise in the corresponding wholesale price has been proved to have taken place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As hon. Members will be aware, I am intending to introduce to-day a Bill taking powers to deal with the prevention of exploitation in regard to articles of food and drink of general consumption.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say if the Clause to which I referred in the Gold Standard (Amendment) Act can be used as a reserve power as, for example, for dealing with wholesalers and merchants?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it cannot be. The Bill which will be avail-
able at the Vote Office will give me much wider powers than could be given under that. Act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Bill deal with coal?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: When may we expect this profiteering Bill to receive the Royal Assent?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That depends upon how quickly the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get it through this House.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it intended—[Interruption.] May I ask—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have an abuse of supplementary questions.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask if a supplementary question becomes an abuse when it is a matter of great public importance which is seriously put to the Minister in order to elicit information as to the intention of the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must be allowed to judge when a supplementary question becomes an abuse.

Sir GERALD HURST: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great advances in prices per cwt. charged by wholesale importers and manufacturers in Manchester for granulated sugar, lard, and margarine; and if he will take action to enable retailers to obtain their supplies at prices not unfairly above their present level?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that there has been some advance in the wholesale price of sugar and lard. As regards margarine, I understand that while the prices of a number of grades of margarine have remained unchanged, a particular line of low priced margarine which was introduced on the market last March has been withdrawn. As regards the latter part of the question, I am working in the closest consultation with the representatives of the trades concerned to achieve the object which my hon. and learned Friend has in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHALE-OIL INDUSTRY.

Mr. SHINWELL: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet considered the quota proposal for the shale-oil industry; and with what result?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I understand that when the late Government had before them proposals including that for a quota scheme, Scottish Oils Limited informed the Government that if the mines, retort works and refineries of which notice of closing had been given, were shut down, it would need very heavy capital expenditure to re-open them. That curtailment has been effected, and I am advised that the introduction of the suggested quota scheme would not result in re-opening the closed mines and works. I am also informed that with the present duty on, and prices of, petrol, there is no immediate prospect of further curtailment. In these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot usefully pursue the matter further.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the imposition of the further tax on petrol will not result in the re-opening of the mines?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what I said. I also said that I have an assurance of the company that the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed will enable the existing mines and works to be kept open.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that this tax enables only inefficient plant to be kept open?

Major COLVILLE: It is not a fact that if the proposal had been recommended before the mines closed, the position would have been very different?

Oral Answers to Questions — GLEN-SHIEL-KINTAIL DEER FORESTS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 91.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners the amount already expended on the Glen-Shiel-Kintail forestry scheme; whether it is proposed to expend further public money upon it; and, if so, whether before any further money is spent on an unprofitable undertaking of this kind, he will cause a committee of inquiry to be appointed in the interests of the public?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The amount expended on the forestry schemes on the Glenshiel and Kintail deer forests is £16,590. Further expenditure will be incurred as the work proceeds. Profits cannot be expected in the early stages of afforestation. No committee of inquiry is to be appointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.

Mr. MAITLAND: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there is any truth in the statement that the Sheerness Royal Dockyard is to be closed down?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir; there is no foundation whatever for that report, and I much regret that before it was circulated no inquiry was made of the Admiralty as to its accuracy.

Mr. MAITLAND: This is a matter of vital importance to a large number of my constituents, and may I be permitted to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (ENTRANCE EXAMINATION).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MACQUISTEN:

95. To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider revising the regulations for entry to Army examinations so as to permit youths whose entry thereto has, through inadvertence or accident, not been made in time to have their names entered under a delay penalty or similar easement of the present conditions?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: With regard to question No. 95, I have received an unsatisfactory written answer, and I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL,

"to authorise the Board of Trade, in case of need, to take exceptional measures for preventing or remedying shortages in, or unreasonable increases in the price of certain articles of food or drink,"
presented by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister; supported by Secretary Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Attorney-General, and Major Lloyd George; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FAIR-WAGE CLAUSE (MAIL CONTRACTS) BILL,

"to ensure that a fair-wage clause shall be inserted in all contracts for the carrying of British mails," presented by Mr. Freeman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30th September].

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Right of stockholders to continue holdings in five per cent. War Loan; requirement of application for cash repayments; &c.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think that we ought to pass this Clause without having an explanation from the Government of what is intended, and perhaps with your permission, Captain Bourne, it might save the time of the Committee if we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some description not merely of that Clause, but of the whole proceedings envisaged in Clauses 11 to 19, in order that we may understand exactly what we are being invited to pass, and what are the advantages, if there be any, which the passage of these Clauses will give to the Inland Revenue for the reduction of the burden of the debt. I therefore content myself with asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will Ire good enough to give us an explanation of Clause 11, and, with your agreement, to extend his explanation to cover the whole procedure which the Government are envisaging here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I realise that this part of the Finance Bill hangs very closely together, and if it be the wish of the Committee, I will be prepared to allow a wide discussion of the conversion scheme on the Question that Clause 11 stand part, but it must be on the strict understanding that when the remaining Clauses are put, any debate must he confined to the details of those Clauses.

Mr. SMITHERS: I would like to make one or two remarks on this Clause before it is passed, and would direct attention to the first words of it, which are of the utmost importance. They read:
If notice is given in accordance with the prospectus.
I would point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has here maintained the tradition of British finance, and has in no way gone back on the prospectus of the 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–47. The prospectus of that loan laid it down that three months' notice must be given before any change could take place in the terms of it, or it was redeemed. Some of the facts which I propose to mention may be well known to those of us whose business it is to follow these things, but they are so important that I want to draw attention to them. It should be noted, in the first place, that the 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–47, is by far the biggest loan in the list of Government securities. It is a loan of £2,000,000,000, and it bears 5 per cent. interest. We all know that as the price of stocks goes up and approaches par, or goes above par, the actual yield on such stocks becomes less, but there is a great psychological effect on investors at home and abroad when the biggest loan in the list of Government securities bears at least a nominal rate of interest of 5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nominal?"] It is of the utmost importance to try to get that loan out of the way, to get it on a lower interest basis as soon as possible.
The Clause shows that existing holders of the loan will be given the choice of two things. After three months' notice has been given of the intention of the Government to take powers under this Bill holders can make either a continuance application or make a repayment application. Here I would like to ask the Financial Secretary, or whoever is to reply, one minor question about line 25 on page 7 where it says:
but subject to such immediate or gradual reduction in the rate of interest, and such modifications.
I do not know whether the Government will be able to do it in future, hut I hope the phrase, "such modifications" will include a provision that no more loans shall be issued with the interest free of tax to the foreigner or to people at home. It gives rise to an enormous amount of difficulty, and, although I do rot know to what extent it has happened, it is a means by which the payment of Income Tax may be evaded.
I presume that the method set forth in the Clause has been adopted because of the enormous size of the loan. Obviously
it is quite impossible, especially in these difficult times, to provide an enormous amount of cash at three months' notice in order to pay off the loan, or that part of it for which cash is demanded. Therefore, I presume this arrangement has been made to enable the Government to know how much cash will be required, that is to say, how many repayment applications will be made. If the Financial Secretary cannot give an answer on tins point just now I hope he will bear it in mind. After the three months are up, is it proposed then to go on with the conversion of the loan under the two headings—continuous applications and repayment applications—and how long will it be, after knowledge has been gained of the amount of cash required, before that portion of the loan for which application for cash has been made will be met?
The proposals in Clause 11 are really a great part of the Budget scheme to help to maintain and to enhance the credit of this country. Really, this is one of the provisions of the Chancellor to balance the Budget and to economise in other ways. A few days ago a comparison was made in this House between the credit of this country and the credit of France and Germany, but I would emphasise most strongly, because the point cannot be too often made, that one cannot compare the credit of this country with the credit of self-supporting countries such as France and Germany. France and Germany can devaluate their currency, can let their currency go down to nothing, and it may hurt their credit and hurt their foreign trade, but, speaking in general terms, those countries will still have sufficient to eat and to drink. Seeing, however, that we have to import some two-thirds of our foodstuffs it is of vital importance that the pound sterling should be kept as high as possible, because otherwise our means of buying the food necessary-for our people disappear.
4.0 p.m.
May I put it this way: If to-morrow a wall were put round France, and nothing went in and nothing came out, the French people would still be able to live, and to live fairly well. They would have plenty of beef, mutton, bread and butter, and a good glass of wine with which to wash it down. If, however, we do anything to hurt the credit of this country or to devaluate the pound, and so to diminish
our purchasing power, and, further, if we do anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "By way of tariffs!"]—if we take any means whatever to destroy the confidence of the foreigner in this country he will cease to trade with us, except on a cash basis, just as when a private trader is known to be in difficulties no one will do business with him unless they can be paid cash on the nail. Exactly the same principle applies to the affairs of this country, and if there is a continuance of Socialist propaganda; if there is a continuance of the strong opposition—I believe it exists only in this House—to the proposals of the Chancellor; if this country does not present a more united front to the whole world, then we shall be doing more than anything else to hurt the credit of the country, to tend to devaluate the pound and to make our difficulties worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not go and live in France?"] I do not want to go to France. I want to stay here, and do my bit by fighting Socialism in this country. We have only two anchors, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said a few days ago when speaking in this House, to which our credit is attached. The first is the Gold Standard and that has gone; the second alone remains—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now wing rather wide of the mark.

Mr. SMITHERS: I will bow to your Ruling at once. I was only trying to point out that the offer of the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan was part of an attempt being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to maintain the credit of this country, and to explain how important the credit of this country is to every one of our people. I am glad to see the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) in his place. Great harm is done to the efforts of the Chancellor to maintain and strengthen the credit of this country by the attitude that the hon. Member is continually taking up and by the kind of questions he asked on the Motion for the Adjournment last night. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way. The kind of matter he raises, as if it were possible or thinkable that the Treasury or the Bank of England would
do anything dishonourable, is doing enormous harm to our credit. I have no doubt that those questions are prompted by his Russian friends who are—[Interruption.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member, after sleeping over it, is entitled, the next afternoon, on a Clause of the Finance Bill, to rehash the discussions that we had last night on the Motion for the Adjournment? It is an entirely different matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I read the speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). I am bound to say it seems to be very remote from the Clause now under discussion.

Mr. SMITHERS: I was simply talking of the attempts that are being made to undo the good work that the Chancellor is doing, and to try further to damage our credit. To turn more nearly to the Clause: In Sub-section (1, c) there is something to which I would like to direct attention. I would like the whole world to know that in this Bill which will soon become an Act of Parliament three months' notice is given. May I ask the Minister who is to reply one or two more technical questions? Suppose that the proposals in Subsection (1, a) are put into operation, will the stock of which notice has been given, either for the purposes of continuance application or repayment application, be negotiable? Can arrangements be made whereby, if the stock is bought or sold, the buyer accepts the liability which is put upon it in this Clause? It is important that that point should be taken into consideration. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not able to give an answer, I hope he will think the matter over, because negotiations of this sort must take some time, and it would be detrimental to have any large amount of stock tied up, even for a few weeks, while no one can negotiate or buy and sell.
On Sub-section (1, b), I presume that, in the case of a cash application being made, it will be possible for the stockholder making the application to transfer it into a continuance application should he so desire.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked that some explanation should be given of this Clause. I spoke at considerable length at an earlier stage and tried to explain these particular Clauses, and the general idea that is embodied in them. I do not know that I am able to add very much, but for the sake of those who are anxious for a further explanation I will paraphrase what I said on the previous occasion. The Clauses are designed to give to the Treasury powers which can be used to convert this huge block of 5 per cent. War Loan stock, amounting to over £2,000,000,000. To a very great extent the terms of the conversion offer will probably follow the conditions which were attached to the original prospectus. If I might, I will summarise the proposal as follows: The proposal is unlike an ordinary conversion operation, because the huge size of this loan makes it necessary that conditions should be attached such as are not necessary in those of smaller amounts. It is proposed to give three months' notice to the holders of the stock, and that during that three months, they shall have the option of continuance on the new terms, or of asking at the end of three months to be repaid in cash. The condition or power which is now being asked for is not new in the history of conversion operations. Mr. Goschen took such a power in his very large conversion operation; it is that unless the owner of the existing stock expressly accepts the offer, or if he does nothing, then he is taken as accepting the offer. If he accepts the offer, then he retains the old stock, but the rights attached to the stock will be different.
The substantial difference between this "continuance operation" as it was called by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) and the ordinary operation is twofold. In an ordinary conversion operation, the owner surrenders his old stock and receives new stock. Under this continuance scheme, the owner retains his old security with changed conditions. Because of the huge size of the loan, it must he obvious that, if there be a large number of holders of present stock who ask to be repaid in cash, the Government could not raise that huge amount of cash in the course
of a few days. Therefore, time is taken in order to see what the result of the conversion operation will be and then to make provision to provide cash for those who want to be paid out in cash. The hon. Member for Chislehurst put one or two questions to me as to what is to happen at the end of the period of three months. I cannot give an answer to that question, because it can only be decided when we see what the result of the offer of conversion has been.
There are one or two other matters on the Sub-section to which I have to make reference. There is the right of incorporating in the terms the non-deduction of Income Tax at the source. Some criticism has been brought against that point. I frankly confess to the Committee that in budgeting there are advantages to be found in deducting tax at the source, but in this case I cannot balance the advantages and disadvantages, and so I propose to continue the present practice. As the Committee is aware, a very considerable amount of this stock is held abroad, and there are obvious advantages to the foreign investor to invest his spare money in this stock. That is the reason why it may be desirable to continue that practice, because, obviously, British stock upon which tax had been deducted at the source would have very little attraction to the foreign investor. These are the main points that were raised by the hon. Member for Chislehurst. He also put a question to me on Sub-sections (2) and (3). It is a matter of machinery which is necessary to provide for the desirable finality in making applications in order that the transfer shall practically result in conversion. There is one very small point. In Sub-section (4) powers are given to the Treasury, if necessary, as I was explaining just now, to offer a very small bonus for early application, a little more than a nominal sum, which will be added to the cost which has to be borne by the Treasury.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that concession apply to individual stockholders or only to the big companies?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It applies to everybody.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his explanation of this Clause. and
I will take this opportunity of saying a few words upon one or two points. As I understand this question, special legislation of this sort is due to the carelessness of those in charge of our finances at the time of the War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the main reason for the difficulty involved in the conversion of the War Loan is the gigantic sum. If instead of being £2,000,000,000 the amount had been £200,000,000 no difficulty would have been found in converting it long ago to the great advantage of the taxpayers of this country, because during the last two years they could have converted to a 4½ per cent., or possibly to a 4 per cent. basis. He also told us on a former occasion that the plan for conversion in the month of June last was frustrated by the difficulties in Germany which sent down the price of stocks.
It is not merely the great size of the War Loan that has made our difficulties so acute; it is more the lack of foresight on the part of those who arranged the loan. Had they taken the precautions which are frequently adopted when large loans are floated, little or no difficulty would have been experienced. The actual difficulty arises from the fact that it has to be a case of "all or nothing." It is not possible by ballot or otherwise to take a certain part and subject it to isolated treatment; we have to make an offer to the holders of the whole £2,000,000,000 at once. Had it been possible to arrange that a certain section should be paid out or offered at a certain time the difficulties which we are now in would not have occurred. We ought to have been able to convert the loan piece by piece and bit by bit, and then we might have floated another loan at a much lower rate.
Now that these proposals are before the Committee, I think we should register our protest at the long delay which has taken place in converting this loan, and we should register our conviction that if ever a large loan of this nature has to be floated again, whether it is due to a war or to some other reason, different provisions must be inserted from those that form the basis of the enormous loan which was floated during the War. It does seem to me that we are paying very dearly for the slipshod methods which were adopted at that time. On more than one occasion a large
part of the War Loan could have been converted at a great saving to the country in the rate of interest. There is no doubt, moreover, that the 5 per cent. War Loan was a very considerable hindrance to the trade of the country, because it made it appear that we were on a 5 per cent. basis when in fact we were on a 4½ per cent basis, and sometimes even as low as a 4 per cent. basis. That is all I propose to say in regard to this particular issue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the provision in the Bill in regard to issuing loans tax free. In some cases the tax is not to he deducted at the source in the same way as in the case of the present loan. I note that question is raised on Clauses 22 and 23, which are outside the particular question that I put relating to the block of Clauses now under discussion. Consequently, I do not propose to deal with that question in detail, and I think it will be better if we defer discussion on those matters until an opportunity occurs when we reach Clauses 22 and 23.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite agree with what the hon. Member has just said because there is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with those two Clauses. Consequently, any reference to them must be very brief because a further opportunity will occur later when those Clauses come up for discussion.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not propose to deal with that particular point any further, and I will reserve my remarks until those two Clauses come directly under review. I must, however, make a reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) who, in dealing with this question of conversion, made an attack upon Socialism which was quite irrelevant to the Debate. He said other things upon which we feel very keenly and which we resent still more. I resent the hon. Member taking advantage of this opportunity to disparage the condition of this country and to condemn the actions of the late Government. In taking that course, the hon. Member not only attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government which he is now supporting, but he attacked the credit of the country. In my opinion, the attack
which has been made on the policy of this country during the last two years has done, and will continue to do, serious damage to the credit of the country in the eyes of the world.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am surprised at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in regard to the remark which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) about Socialism. I was one of those who served in the War, although I occasionally came back to this country because I was a member of the House of Commons. I was in this country during the flotation of this loan, and it was made perfectly plain by all sections of the House that the loan was more likely to be a success if the condition was made that it should not be taxed at the source. I have always been under the impression that the stability of this country was such that except in times like the present it was always possible to convert a loan from a 5 per cent. to a 4½ per cent. basis. In this case, £2,000,000,000 has been invested in the finest security in the world, which is the security of this great country. There is no suggestion that the conditions laid down in the prospectus are to be interfered with in the slightest way, and there is in the prospectus an opportunity provided of converting the loan by giving three months' notice.
All those who are engaged in finance know full well that there is a considerable amount of this loan in the hands of people who are not resident in this country, but who are British nationals. Therefore, notification should be given to them that they have to convert if and when we find it right to do so. The size of the loan is £2,000,000,000, and I have always been of the opinion that if the Treasury had put their hands on 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of that huge sum and had been in the position to pay it off, we might have issued another loan bearing a lower rate of interest and then it would not have been necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make arrangements for the conversion of £2,000,000,000. The money in gilt-edged securities which cannot be utilised cannot be better invested than in British loans, and therefore, if we gave notice to convert, an enormous amount of that money
would be bound to come back to this country. If it did not come back, what could they do with it? You do not in such a case keep the money at the bank, because you do not go in for a conversion scheme when the Bank rate is 5½ or 6 per cent., but only when money is easy, at, say, 2½ or 3 per cent. You do not go in for conversion in such critical times as those through which, unfortunately, we are now passing. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, they are among the most difficult times in regard to finance that we have ever experienced.
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not wanting at all in courage, and I suggest that he might, as soon as the conditions of the money market become easier, after the necessary consultation with financiers in the City of London, the great banks, the insurance companies and the finance houses, issue a statement that he is going to give three months' notice of his intention to convert this loan. I can see certain difficulties with regard to that, but I cannot see any difficulty in making it plain that, at the expiry of the three months, every cent piece of interest would cease to operate. Of course, a very large amount of this loan is held abroad, in all parts of the world, and it might be possible that some holders of the stock would not receive the notice, or it might be overlooked, but, if it were made plain that no interest would accrue after the expiry of the three months, I do not think there would be any difficulty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the conditions which attach to the present stock. Those conditions, I understand, are to be continued, and I can quite see that that is necessary, although some people may say that they are very advantageous. It is not, however, so very many years since this stock was issued. At that time we were all looking around, and Members of the House were doing their part in endeavouring to get as many people as they could to subscribe to the stock; and Members who carry their minds back will recollect that there were very often difficulties in getting the necessary applications. We were all out for one thing, namely, that we should not lose the War in consequence of want of finance, and everyone, irrespective of party, did everything that they possibly could. When a huge amount like this is needed, as was pointed
out by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it was not a, question of £20,000,000, or even £200,000,000—you often have to grant conditions that you cannot possibly help in the circumstances, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse my saying that I do not think it is particularly generous in these days to come back and criticise those who did their level best at that time.
As I have said, all parties in the House had one common object, and that was to get the money necessary to bring the War to a successful conclusion. It is very easy now, after 14 years, for the hon. Gentleman to criticise what was done, but in those days we were up against the question of the life or death of the men of this country who were fighting, and in such circumstances one would not hesitate to give this or that away in the contract, but, using common sense and common discretion, would realise that the conditions must be made as palatable as possible, not only to people in this country, but to people in other countries, when we were endeavouring to get this money together. When the hon. Gentleman reads to-morrow his references to the "slap-dash methods" which were adopted, I cannot help thinking that he will take his mind back and say to "Well, perhaps it would have been advisable if I had not used phraseology of that nature, when I remember the difficulties in which the country was at that time."
I venture to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the first opportunity when we get easier money conditions, will take the necessary steps, and will make it perfectly plain in the notice he gives that not a penny piece of interest will accrue after the date on which the notice expires. I cannot help thinking that in any steps he may take in that direction he will have the support of all parties in the House, because I think we all feel how heavily this matter presses upon us, and what an advantage a reduction of ½ per cent., or even per cent. in interest would be. We want to do all that we can in these times to reduce expenses, and, with that end in view, we should give all the assistance and support that we can to those who are endeavouring to achieve it.

Mr. WISE: I cannot help feeling that the remarks in the latter part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) would have produced more effect if they had been made before certain very expensive credits and contracts were entered into in Paris and New York, to which I referred last night. I want to deal with the more general question of conversion which is raised by this series of Clauses. No one on this side of the House objects to conversion as such, but we do feel that the whole policy and attitude of the Government, as represented in these Clauses, with their tenderness to the holders of War Loan, contrasts in the most extraordinary fashion with the Government's attitude towards those who hold other contractual obligations from His Majesty's Government. It is an extraordinary thing, which we shall not fail to press home on the understanding of the country, that, when it is a question of dealing with the poorest people in the community, the Government takes power under an Act of Parliament to vary contractual and statutory obligations at will, but when it is a question of dealing with the—

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Member aware that a large amount of this loan is held by people who have subscribed through savings banks?

Mr. WISE: I am perfectly well aware of that; the widows and orphans are always trotted out on these occasions; but, when it is a question of dealing with obligations of this kind, the Government does nothing of that sort, but sticks to the letter of the prospectus and gets the applause of hon. Members opposite; and, far from exercising any kind of pressure, despite the circumstances of the country, it gives them three months' option in which they can make up their minds what they shall do.

Mr. SMITHERS: Would the hon. Member specify what contracts have been broken?

Mr. WISE: The hon. Member has been attending the Debates on the National Economy Bill, and he will find in the Schedule to that Bill specific power to break contractual and statutory obligations on the part of His Majesty's
Government to persons in their employ and to persons entitled to benefit under existing legislation. There is no question about what is being done.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Was there any contract?

Mr. WISE: Yes. I advise the hon. Member to refer to the Bill itself. Obviously he has not been studying it with the same zeal with which he has been studying these conversion terms, but he will have to do so, no doubt, within a few weeks.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: A contract has to be signed by two parties.

Mr. WISE: The purpose of this conversion operation is twofold—to take off the country the immense burden which these debts impose upon it, and also to take the opportunity, if it occurs or if it can be made, to reduce the excessive amount that goes to the holders of fixed interest-bearing securities on account of the fall in prices. A few days ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would indicate what had been the effect of this change in prices on the purchasing power of incomes as between 1920 and 1928. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for reasons which I need not investigate, refused to give that information, but, happily, since that date I have come across an authoritative statement of the effect. It is an illustration worked out in the case of a man with an income of £10,000 a year derived from War Loan. The figures are worked out as between 1920 and 1928, and the final summation of the result is this—

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: What is the reason for taking the years 1920 to 1928?

Mr. WISE: I am giving the case as it is stated; the hon. Member can challenge it in a moment. The result of the calculation is to show that in this typical case—the case of a man with £10,000 a year derived from War Loan—the reduction of taxation and the increase in the purchasing power of money have practically doubled the real income in eight years. That is an authoritative statement of the facts.—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"]—"by the right hon. Philip Snowden," in a pamphlet written
and issued by him in 1929. I am sure that no one on the opposite side of the House will now challenge that authority.
The truth of the matter is that, in the present circumstances of the money market, at any rate in the immediate future, within the next year or two, the whole of this Clause is likely to be entirely inoperative. No one on the other side of the House has any real confidence that a favourable occasion for conversion is likely to come within the present Budget year, or probably the next Budget year. The advantage that is likely to accrue to the Budget this year, even if the three months' notice could be given now—and there is not the slightest, possibility of that, as everyone on the opposite benches knows—the advantage to the Budget this year would be nothing at all; and there is very little expectation now that within the next 6 or 12 months any opportunity of conversion on satisfactory terms will come.
This is a pure bluff, an attempt to delude the people of the country that something equal is being done as regards the wage earner and the man who gets his income from investments in War Loan and similar securities. If the emergency is such as it is reported to be, clearly the right way of dealing with a charge which represents more than a third of our total national Budget is to deal with it not in this half-hearted manner designed, as they say, to preserve the confidence of the City of London, using the same arguments and forecasting the same kind of disaster as they said would occur three weeks ago if we went off the Gold Standard. The proper way to tackle the problem is not to wangle the money market but directly to tax the holder of fixed interest bearing securities, whether War Loan or debentures or bonds of South American or any other railways, and to take from him by direct taxation some portion of that unearned increment which has come to him from the inflation policy of the banks which has increased, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, twofold in eight years the real yield of the interest and dividends paid to them.
In Australia they adopted what was in effect a scheme of compulsory conversion, accompanying that with special taxation so as to get things equal as between the man who lent his money at fixed interest rates to his Government and the man
who lent his money to a brewery or a railway or other corporation, who had also the special increment that came from a reduction in prices. In France the methods were even more drastic. The French method of conversion was to repudiate about four-fifths of the debt and interest. Despite that blow to confidence we are constantly told, indeed we have hard and bitter reason to know, that French financial prestige is now supreme in Europe. If French prestige could stand that sort of blow, surely British prestige would have stood a definite tax designed to return to the community the increment, the yield of these War Loans, floated in the difficult and transient circumstances of the War as a matter of justice and as a proper method of dealing with the financial position of the country. If that course had been followed, it would have been not only more just but, instead of saving at most, if this conversion operation is carried through at a maximum reduction of I per cent., which no one has any expectation of making for a long time, possibly £15,000,000 to the Exchequer, we should have secured for the Exchequer the £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) thought to be the unearned increment of such securities. In doing that, we should, at any rate, have done something to put right that unfair burden which falls on the poor and the reserve and care which the Government have exercised in dealing with the rich. May I make another quotation, which may or may not commend itself to hon. Members opposite:
Through all the centuries the rich have managed to evade their just share of taxation. They have enjoyed the protection of the Government and have put the cost upon the poor. Although things in this respect are better to-day, the rich still pay far less than their fair share of national taxation and the poor pay far more than they ought justly to contribute.
I am only sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here so that he might have confirmed what he wrote less than two years ago.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but there are moments when silence becomes impossible. As I listened to the hon. Member, I could not help thinking that this must
be a preliminary canter to a street corner campaign in a general election. At all events, let him reflect that there is another side to the case, and it is possible that there are a considerable number of facts in support of it. He spoke of this question of War Loan in general and the conversion Clause in particular as if it were a matter that solely concerned the capitalist class. He sneered at the fact that we should be arguing that there were small holders of War Loan and alluded to the widow and the orphan. In the Post Office alone there are a million separate holdings of War Loan, and in the figures that were supplied the other day to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) we find that the same is true of a large number of classes of Government loans and securities. It is as well that we should take the opportunity, while we have it, of tackling this matter.
Will the hon. Member answer me three questions? When you make suggestions of this character as regards either special taxation or a reduction of the rate of interest on War Loan, what are you going to do about foreign holders? It is difficult to say how much but certainly a large proportion of 5 per cent. War Loan, and a larger proportion of 4 per cent. Funding Loan, is held by foreign holders to whom you gave a special pledge in the prospectus that it would be free of British taxation and would bear a certain rate of interest. Are you going to exempt foreign holders? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let hon. Members think for a moment where we are. We are discussing a Finance Bill at a time when the only thing that stands between the pound and a catastrophic drop in its value is the confidence of foreign holders in the integrity of the British Government, and that of all moments is the moment that he and the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) choose to threaten the holders with action that conflicts with the terms of the prospectus on which they subscribed their money.
Secondly, the hon. Member, and everyone who argues this question, seems to start by assuming that the people who hold War Loan are the same set of people who originally subscribed to it. That is far from being the case. In fact, the very reverse is the case.
I make bold to say that, except in the case of a few big holders, such as banks and large companies, it is probably true that only a fractional percentage of the holders of War Loan are the original subscribers. What you have now are bona fide holders for value, people who bought it at the market price of the day believing it would be subject only to ordinary taxation. Why single them out for special taxation, remembering that a large number of them are trustees who were almost forced to buy War Loan? You made it difficult or impossible for them subscribe to anything else. It was regarded as being the duty of trustees to put a certain portion of the estates they were administering into War Loan. Why single these people out for special taxation?
Thirdly, the whole of this argument proceeds upon the premise that you are dealing with a comparison with 1920, as the hon. Member suggested when he quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But you must not think of this question in terms of 1919–20. You have to think of it in terms of 1914–17, because it was not in 1919–20 that the bulk of the War Loan was subscribed but in 1914–17. I have not the exact figures, but I should not be surprised to find that over 80 per cent. of the total amount of the loans was subscribed before 1919. It is not the case that the pound was worth much less then and is worth more now in terms of commodities. You are dealing with money now which is substantially on the same level as the pound when the War Loans were subscribed. In fact, as regards about a sixth of the Debt, you are dealing with a state of things now when the pound is worth very much less than it was then, because certainly £680,000,000 of Loans was subscribed in terms of pre-War money in 1914. I plead with the Committee. Do not let us have quite so much discussion of this matter without taking relevant notice of the facts and, above all, let us choose a moment to discuss it when we shall not jeopardise that confidence of foreign nations in the integrity of the British Government which is the sole support of the pound at present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is very delightful to hear the right hon. Baronet as a free lance debater, with
rather more liberty and less responsibility than that which used rather to cramp his style when he was Postmaster-General. I so enjoyed it that I cannot refrain from making one or two comments on his speech, though I will not attempt to make the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) will make in answer to his invitation. Surely what is overlooked by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and the right hon. Baronet and other apologists of the present Government and its actions is that in this matter during the last 10 years the whole class which draws interest on bonds, rent, dividends or debentures and fixed interest bearing securities has gained an advantage because of the increased value of gold and the decrease in the value of goods, and that has been a result of deliberate policy of the great central banks of the world and of the Bank of England in particular. It has been the international banking policy, in which we have taken a leading part, and the result has been, with the restriction of credit and the fall in wholesale prices to inflict great suffering on the mass of the wage earners, farmers, manufacturers and other producers. The producers have suffered in order that the drones should get more honey. I do not say they are all dishonest. I am not criticising the man who puts his money into War Loan or mortgages or anything of that sort. [An HON. MEMBER: "You only want to rob him!"] We have to make the best of our present social system until we can alter it, but in the meantime all that class has gained enormously, and our complaint is that, when this policy has brought you to your present troubles, it is not that class you make pay for it, but the producing class, including the working and the business men as well—the people who manage factories and mines and produce that wealth. You make that class pay and, above all, you make the unfortunate workmen pay who are thrown out of employment because of this same policy which has so helped the great rentier class. That is our case. It is not made any less hard by the right hon. Baronet and others pleading about those who either exchanged or purchased or inherited War Loan.

5.0 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: The hon. and gallant Member has expressed a great deal
of interest in the manufacturing and merchant classes of this country, and I should like to ask him if he is aware that in times of depressed trade the whole of the capital of the companies or firms cannot be used in the business, and that the usual practice is to put the surplus into the very security of which we are talking, namely, War Loan. Therefore, his policy, and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), is to help industries in this country by robbing them of half the capital they have put aside into War Loan so that it will make it easier, I suppose, to re-start their industries under more favourable conditions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would far rather encourage people to put their money into improvements and renovations and the modernisation of their plant.

Sir B. PETO: How can you do that when there is no occasion to do such a thing?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why are the companies unable to employ capital at the present time? It is because of the policy of central banks, in the interest of the rentier class, having so depressed prices and brought about a world slump and caused unemployment. In this matter you have threatened a cleavage between the producers in this country, including the employers—the people who produce the wealth, the farmers and the workers on one side, and those who want to live by drawing fixed interest on the nation's Debt and on other interest-bearing securities. We have not made a cleavage at all. It has been the policy supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which has brought it about. It is no use the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) telling us how the poor holders of Consols before the War have been robbed, and that sort of thing. The whole policy has benefited the rentier class at the expense of the producers of wealth.

Mr. REID: Can the hon. and gallant Members tell us the relative position of a holder of £100 worth of Consols on the let January, 1914, and now?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not much concerned about the holder of Consols. I think there are £600,000,000 worth of Consols and other pre-War National Bonds, or something like that. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will he able to give the figures out of his head. How do we know that many of these holders of Consols are not the very people whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) talks of, who bought them at round about £40?

Mr. REID: Many people have held Consols during the whole period, and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that this taxation should apply to them?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member has brought up particularly the case of the holders of Consols, and I say that the holders of Consols, owing to redistribution of wealth, and that sort of thing, have very largely changed. We are not dealing with pre-War loans now, but with the great investments of the War profiteers and people who were enriched in the few years after the War and during the War days; those who invested while other people were giving their lives, in fixed interest-bearing securities, who have been enormously benefited in recent years by a deliberate policy of deflation which has almost starved about 2,500,000 workers in this country. I was only led into this reply to the right hon. Member for South Croydon because he always stimulates me when he lets himself go in this House. I really rose to refer to a remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in his absence perhaps I may address my remarks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary. I have great sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if he wants to bring about a voluntary conversion loan he really must stop some of the speeches we hear in this House and in the country from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite. When the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) gets up in this House, I only hope that he is not seen and heard by visiting foreign investors who, perhaps, do not quite appreciate the niceties of our domestic political warfare and may take something which he says at face value.
Why are we faced with the present trouble? There are one or two reasons. I want to deal only with points bearing on the question of conversion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) says that the only thing between us and ruin is the integrity of the British Government. If he means this Government, I should think that ruin has already arrived. Why is it that there has been this temporary lack of faith, which I think is altogether unjustified? It has been because of the deliberate policy of decrying this country and making it appear that it was bankrupt, finished, and no use at all, and that our credit was bad. There has been far too much of this sort of thing. I prefer that we should show some of the robust patriotism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). Part of his speech was admirable. That is the sort of spirit we ought to have if we hope to make any voluntary conversions. The sort of speeches made on the wireless by certain economists of the Bank of England, giving a most extravagant account of what is going to happen to this country, and what will happen to this country, is not the sort of thing to attract foreign investors to this country in respect of a conversion scheme. You are not going to attract them to a country described as brought to ruin by the financial policy of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very sorry for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case. All his policy is now being attacked and criticised and ridiculed by those who are to-day his nominal supporters, and in addition they are trying to force upon the country the very policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes will really ruin it—a ridiculous Protectionist policy.
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will bear in mind what I am now going to say. I believe that immense damage is being done to our credit by the panic measures which have been taken in various Government Departments since the present Government came into office. Take the similar case of a very rich man, by far the richest man in his neighbourhood, Mr. John Bull, who one day thinks, as rich men sometimes do, that he is going to end his days in the workhouse. Some rich men sud-
denly think that all is lost when they are perfectly safe and solvent. Such a man begins to cut down his staff of servants and gardeners and cuts down his trees and stops his children's milk and food, and proceeds to go about in very old clothes. His neighbours think that there must be something very wrong and that he really is ruined, whereas in point of fact he is immensely wealthy and has immense assets. Rumours reach the City and his creditors and they get nervous. We have an example of this sort of thing today in the statement that children are to be charged a penny in order to go into Kew Gardens, and this is being done to save some £3,000. That sort of thing really gives the same kind of impression as would be given by the man whom I am describing. Stories are put about that poor old John Bull really is financially ruined, and his credit goes.
If you continue this kind of policy under the present Government you cannot hope for your conversion loan on any reasonable terms or to attract foreign investors at all. If they are told in wealthy cities where the investors are to be found —in Amsterdam and Paris and so on—that the English cannot afford to keep the un- employed ex-Service men alive in physical efficiency, or to continue the normal improvement of education, and all that kind of thing, ridiculous panic, extremist measures of miserable miserliness are adopted, and it not only makes ridiculous any pleadings for national unity, but gives an extremely bad impression abroad. Unless we once more look facts in the face and recognise that we are in a far better position in this country than any other manufacturing and exporting country in the world, as the actual figures show, and certainly better than most of our neighbours and the United States, we cannot hope to restore general confidence at home and abroad. I suggest that it is time to put a stop to panic measures and panic speeches, and the sooner the right hon. Gentleman muzzles people like the hon. Member for Chislehurst and others, and those professional pessimists for party political reasons, the better for the credit of this country and its reputation in the markets and nations of the world.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-
worthy) puckers his brow and looks fiercely at us as he addresses the Committee, he entertains us very much. But we do not regard him seriously. He is the Will Somers of the House and we like him; but I think that he would be the last man in this assembly to take himself seriously. He wanders over the field of debt and finance and talks about France and the United States rather than about the National Debt. He made one or two statements to which I will confine myself. He talked about the rentier class bearing heavily upon the shoulders of the producers. The hon. and gallant Member wandered into discussing securities other than those with which we are now dealing, National Loans. Does he realise the relatively low rate of interest which the rentier debt holder receives from the Exchequer? I did not believe that it was so low until I heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made a mental note of it. It appeared in column 925 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on 16th September last. The Chancellor said that, speaking from memory, the last time he looked at the average rate at which the Exchequer was paying interest to debt holders it was about 3½ per cent. When you take 5s. in the £ off 3½ per cent., £2 12s. 6d. per cent, is the amount a man is getting for lending £100. If he pays Surtax on top of that, and it goes up to 8s. in the £, heaven help the man who has invested his money and thinks he is going to live on capital which brings him in something in the neighbourhood of 1¼ per cent.
If the hon. and gallant Member agrees that a man has a right to lend money which he has inherited, saved, or earned, to the country in return for interest, he cannot for a moment justify the attack he has made upon those debt-holders who, if they do not pay Surtax, are getting £2 12s. 6d. per cent. according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or who, if they are called upon to pay 8s. in the pound Super-tax, will really get only 1¼ per cent. If so low an interest as that was considered to be an unreasonable burden and attacked, no one would ever save and no one would ever again lend money either to the State, in order to allow the State to fight for its life and honour, or to the factory to enable it to put down plant and machinery. [An HON.MEMBER: "What would you do?"]
An hon. Gentleman asks what shall we do with it? It can be spent. Capital is the pool from which industry is nourished and from which labour is paid. I cannot go into the theory of the matter further than that, but if a man does not lend his capital or savings to the State or to industry or to other enterprises but squanders it on himself and family merely in food and dress or pleasure, and it goes out of the country to pay for such purchases, who will be the loser? Industry itself, and those engaged in industry.
The State pays interest to the holders of its stock, but the stockholder or the bondholder has nobody to thank.
I have here a financial statement (No. 90) issued by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury, signed by him and dated April, 1931. From that document I find that the Inland Revenue collect from the direct taxpayer, from Income Tax, Surtax, Estate Duty, stamps, Excess Profits Duty, Corporation Profits Tax, Property Tax, Land Tax, etc., £447,000,000. Since then, £51,000,000 more direct taxation has been added, making, roughly, £500,000,000. The interest on the debt is £302,000,000, so that it can be said, although it seems a paradox, that the bondholder actually pays to the State far more than he receives in the form of interest paid to him by the State. He not only provides considerably more than the interest on the Debt but he pays a good deal further for the upkeep of the social services. The nation's bondholder or the stockholder has nothing to thank the State for. Whatever interest he gets, he has contributed nearly twice that amount in the direct taxes that he pays —taxes that are not contributed by other sections of taxpayers.
Take the whole of the taxation that is raised. I suppose that when the new Budget is in operation the taxation will be in the neighbourhood of £750,000,000. Of that, £500,000,000 will he raised entirely from the direct taxpayer, who also pays a good deal in addition to Customs and Excise, in the form of indirect taxation. Therefore hon. Members opposite have no right to cast gibes at the direct taxpayers. He pays his whack in full measure and running over. He has nothing to be ashamed of. He is carrying his share of the burden to the uttermost, and millions of the National Debt
holders are relatively poor people. At this point as regards the debtholders, I should like to rebut a statement made by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). I hope he will not take offence or think that I am discourteous if I say that part of his argument was suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Mr. WISE: Will the hon. Member say which applies to the quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not responsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer although I am supporting him now. Hon. Members must remember that up to September we were fighting him tooth and nail. He has, however, come to redeem his character. For what he said prior to September I am not responsible. The hon. Member for East Leicester made a statement about the alleged increased value which the national bondholder is getting as compared with the value of the pound which he lent to the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now present and I think he will bear me out in what I say. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member opposite to say that the national bondholder who is receiving interest now, or in 1928, is receiving double the interest upon the debt compared with 1920. Of the £7,500,000,000 which represent the total of the National Debt, £650,000,000 was borrowed before 1914 and some now appears in the form of Consols or converted debt and other forms. It was originally lent prior to 1914, when the cost of living was equal to 100. The next portion of the debt was borrowed in 1914–15 when there was a plus of 23 on the cost of living. That is to say the cost of living was 123 as compared with 100 in 1913. In 1916 the cost of living was plus 46. In 1917 it was plus 76. The average for those years, including 1913–14, worked out at about 45 or 50 plus on the 100 index figure in 1913. The hon. Member talked about 1920. Little fresh money was borrowed by the State after 1918. The only large loans that were floated thereafter were the Funding Loan and Victory Bonds and those loans were not all new money. They included conversion money. It is wicked to say that those who lent pounds in those earlier years, when nearly all the National Debt was borrowed, are to-day getting a better pound than the average they lent. It is
not true. The year 1920 is irrelevant, as nearly all the National Debt was raised before 1920.

Mr. WISE: Will the hon. Member say how much money was borrowed in the second part of 1917 and onwards? I have quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is shielding himself behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make my own case myself against the hon. Member. If he is trying to make the point that the average pounds which were lent to the State and now form part of the debt were of much less value then than the bondholders are now receiving, it is not true. That part of the money which was borrowed in 1914–15–16–17, and including the pre-War debt, was subjected to a very high punishment during those years from 1920 up to 1922–23 by the fact that the pounds that the debtholders got back in interest was received by them in times when the cost of living stood as high as at plus 172 on 1913 = 100. He was getting back pounds during many years which were of much less value than the average pounds he lent the State. The hon. Member asked me how much money was lent in 1917 and onwards. I have already said that after 1918 the only important loans which were issued were Victory Bonds and Funding Loan, a good portion of which was old money for conversion. The hon. Member thinks that there were other loans issued in 1920. They were mainly conversion loans and not new money. Nine-tenths of the National Debt was borrowed before 1920. And that is the whole point.
The statement shall not go out from this Committee uncontradicted that the bondholder is getting back a better pound than the average pound he lent the State. It is not true. On the average the bondholder lent pounds for the whole National Debt at plus 45 to 50 over the cost-of-living figure of 1913, and he has been getting back for some months till to-day a pound with a purchasing power at plus 45 or 50. There is very little difference in the purchasing value or the power that he is now getting back, and the pound that he lent, but it must be remembered that in the meantime he has been severely punished
by the fact that the cost of living has been up to plus 172 on 1913 and he got back for some years pounds of much less value than he lent. I protest against the hon. Member making a statement which misleads the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has beard what I have said and can corroborate it, so that the country may not be deceived by such a statement as has been made by the hon. Member for East Leicester to-day, and will no doubt be repeated, as it has been repeated previously.

Mr. J. JONES: It has been said that fools step in where angels fear to tread. The more one listens to experts on this question of finance, the more one becomes bewildered by the language used by the people who pretend to know all about it. We have been told that the rich are worse off now, in spite of all that has happened since 1914, and that the pound is worth less to-day than it was in 1917–18 and the years following. What a wonderful story! When I read reports and Blue Books and White Papers, which I often describe on public platforms as political seidlitz powders, I find that the people who up to now have been paying Income Tax have become progressively richer. Although the numbers who pay Income Tax have been decreasing, the amounts that they have received in the form of rent, interest and profits have been increasing, until within recent years the average increase has been at the rate of £200,000,000 a year.
I do not pretend to be an expert in the face of the mighty people who have spoken in this Debate since the Bill was introduced, and I suppose I ought to put myself in sackcloth and ashes, but I can see a hole in a ladder as quickly as anyone, and I know that so far as the working classes are concerned they are immeasurably worse off than they were before. The hon. Member who has just spoken says: "What are we going to do with our money? We will not lend it to the State. We will not put it into industry." I would say to hon. Members opposite: "Are you going to take it with you? If you do, it will melt." For what purpose do people use their money? The ordinary workman draws his wages on a Friday or a Saturday, and by the following Friday the money is finished and he has to borrow a shilling
to keep him going until the Saturday, when he draws the next lot. I ask hon. Members opposite: "What do you do with your lot? You live very well on what you have, and then you have a surplus to invest. How do you invest it? In the exploitation of your fellow men."
This talk about investment by hon. Members opposite makes me tired. If they could find an opportunity of making bigger profits out of the Chinaman instead of the Englishman, they would go for the Chinaman every time. This talk about the foreign investor makes me tired. The foreigner is to be protected. What has the foreigner done for us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer went to The Hague and took up a definite stand in favour of British financial interests. He was applauded in the newspapers and by many people for the splendid stand he made for British finance. I do not pretend to know as much about it as he does, but I applauded among the rest—God forgive me—and now we are told by these skilled economists that we must not touch the foreigner with a 40-feet pole. We are going to pay him 19s. 11¾, and a penny over. It does not matter how the pound depreciates or what happens to us so long as the foreigner gets his pound of flesh. Some of them do not pay the debts they owe to us. If they are going to demand their pound of flesh when we owe them money, why cannot we demand our pound of flesh when they owe us money.

Mr. SMITHERS: Ask the Russians about that.

Mr. JONES: Some of the hon. Members opposite have an obsession about Russia. They have never heard me defending Bolshevism, and they never will. If you let France off there is no crime in letting Russia off. You are cuddling the French and spitting on the Russians. If you were strong enough to force Russia to pay her debts you would compel her by force of arms, but you cannot; and you bow the knee to France. People who come here and talk about what they lost in the War never think of the million of men who lost their lives. A land fit for heroes has become a mere miasma; and the two millions who are disabled are forgotten.
We are told that sacrifices are necessary and that this is one of the means of restoring the situation. We are going to gain £100,000,000 by converting the loan. I congratulate the Tory party on one thing, and that is on having converted some of our old colleagues to follow the policy of the most reactionary crowd which ever dominated the affairs of any country. You may convert your loan, but is there any hope that you will not place a greater burden on the necks of the people? You are playing a kind of confidence trick on the people of this country. Who will have to foot the bill? Is it the rentier class, who live without working? No. When the bill has to be paid it will be paid by those who have to work for all they get. In the last resort Phil Garlic pays the lot. I do not know much about the Stock Exchange and shares and banking, but you are not gambling in stocks and shares, in railways or mines and factories, but in human lives, and every penny you get is stained with the blood of the class to which I belong. We do not care for your conversions—or perversions. We understand that Shylock must get his money back, that we are to bow the knee to Mammon, and that this country is to be placed in pawn. It is not inappropriate that an hon. Member in that particular profession should have made the attack he has upon the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise).

Sir GERALD HURST: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) lectured hon. Members on this side for what he called the sort of spirit in which they approached the question of conversion, and in order to show the right spirit he proceeded to make an attack upon what he called the rentier class in a spirit which has been emulated by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in his attack upon what he chooses to call the rentier class. It is quite obvious that if hon. Members opposite will only address their minds to the question as to who are the men and women who invested their money in War Loan they will see how ridiculous it is to suggest that to invest in War Loan is "an exploitation of their fellow men" or that War Loan is "stained with the blood of the working classes." That is absolute nonsense. Who are the rentier class, who are the people who invested their
money during the War in War Stock? It certainly was not the War profiteers. They were far more concerned with putting their money into businesses which grew rich out of the needs of the War; they never dreamt of putting their money into War Loan. They found far more profitable fields of investment.
The truth is that a great mass of the savings of this country were put into War Loan by millions of patriotic citizens in response to a patriotic call. Had they been simply concerned with getting the biggest possible return for their money they would have put it into armaments and materials of war, which were in great demand, not into War Loan. At the present time there are millions and millions of people in this country relatively poorly off whose sole savings are in War Stock and to regard the War Loan as the exclusive property of people who exploited their fellow men, and as "stained with the blood of the working class," is an illusion which no reasonable man can share. In what securities are the investments of the great provident societies, the friendly societies, and trade unions? To a large extent, and for security, they put their money into War Loan. All this attack upon the so-called rentier class shows an entire misunderstanding of what rentier means, and of the type of man who has put his money into national securities, and also an entire misunderstanding of the enormous part which capital plays in providing the life blood of industry. If hon. Members opposite would apply their minds to the real issue, as to how holders of War Stock should be treated, they would realise that the spirit invoked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is the last sort of spirit one would wish to see in this country.
Hon. Members opposite object to Clause 11 because it is based upon the desirability of converting 5 per cent. War Loan into a security bearing a lower rate of interest. What is their alternative proposal? It is vital that they should meet that challenge, if they oppose the proposal of the Government. If they do not honour their obligations the only alternative is repudiation, either complete or partial repudiation. That is the only alternative before the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull says that measures of this sort are a source
of trouble and inflict damage on the credit of this country; that when other countries see that we are making a small economy at Kew, of £3,000, they will be horrified at our action and regard this country as very much less worthy. That is the point in his observations. What is his alternative? If he does not approve the idea of conversion into a lower interest bearing War Loan then his only alternative is complete or partial repudiation. Does the hon. and gallant Member advocate that?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not only measures like the penny on the children at Kew, but you must take that in combination with the ridiculously pessimistic utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the neurotic and panic-striken utterances of the Prime Minister, which are taken at their face value abroad.

Sir G. HURST: What makes the world so pessimistic and nervous is the extraordinary rubbish spoken by hon. Members opposite.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At any rate we do believe in our country.

Sir G. HURST: We all believe in our country. Do the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull and the hon. Member for Silvertown really believe that the expressions they have used to-day, in which they have described investors as exploiting their fellow men, are likely to instil optimism in foreign investors Their speeches, implying the advocacy of repudiation, are the very things which have brought about a loss of confidence in the minds of foreign investors; it is one of the underlying causes of the trouble from which we are now suffering. The best cure for pessimism, the best preventive for those nervous and neurotic feelings abroad, would be a complete abstinence on the part of the hon. and gallant Member from making any further speeches in this House.

Mr. PRICE: We on this side do not say that holders of War Loan are not entitled to the advantages which have accrued to them so long as the State continues its present policy, but we do say that the State has a right, in view of existing conditions, to claim a greater portion of the advantages which have accrued to them in recent years than is
actually the case at the moment. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) in his reply to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) argued that in the earlier periods of the War inflationary tendencies existed and that therefore it was unfair to say there was any real accumulation or addition to the gold value of the interest which they receive. I do not consider that that is any argument at all. What we have to consider is not when this War Loan was subscribed —no one can tell that now. If we searched the records at Somerset House we might get some idea as to when it took place, but the plain fact is this—it is shown in the Statistical Abstract—that in 1920 the average retail price level in the country was about 200, in 1925 when we returned to the Gold Standard it was 170, and it is now 145. On the basis of those figures it is clear that £100 worth of 5 per cent. War Loan which in 1920 would buy £5 worth of commodities will now, owing to the fall in retail prices, buy from £6 to £7 worth of commodities.
No one can deny that there has been an accretion of gold value to the holders of War Debt in consequence of the deflationary policy which has been carried on, consciously or unconsciously I do not know, by Central Banks all over the world. On the other hand, if one looks at industrial securities you will see exactly the reverse, profits have fallen and dividends have come down, until last year, 1930, according to the figures quoted in the "Economist," the profits in iron and steel, coal and rubber, textiles and tea, went down by £8,000,000 in that one year. True, in others they went up in the consumable goods in the home markets, in such as breweries and so forth, but the great staple industries have been slowly going down, while the holders of bonds and gilt-edged securities have had the windfall on their holdings increased. It is time that the Treasury examined whether it is possible to make those who have gained by the fall in the retail price contribute something to the national need at this time. The most obvious means by which this can be done is by a conversion scheme.
The reason why we take up this attitude to the Chancellor's conversion scheme is that we do not consider that it goes far enough. It lets the holders
off too lightly. We would call attention to the fact that in one of the Dominions, the Commonwealth of Australia, a similar transaction has been carried through, but in a very much more drastic way. Mr. Scullin has converted a large portion of the Australian internal debt to a lower level of interest, but he has not done so by the methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which are purely voluntary. His methods were an appeal to patriotism, it is true, but there was a hidden threat of compulsion. An hon. Member has referred to the holdings of the foreigner and said, "What can we do? We cannot frighten them. The pound sterling is being held up largely by the foreigner who holds a certain portion of our bonds." I do not believe that if the foreigner were appealed to he would altogether refuse to convert to a lower percentage. My reason for saying that is, that it is not only this country that has suffered.
Everyone knows from the most recent reports that the United States is suffering a very serious depression that is becoming deeper and deeper, and that, even in the last few days, trouble seems to be brewing in Paris. There is nowhere, either in New York or in Paris, for investors with surplus money. Sterling bonds have hitherto been regarded as the high-water mark and the best gilt-edged bonds in the world. Owing to our going off the Gold Standard, that position has been affected. But where else in the world, having regard to the present position in France and America, sitting as they are on their hoarded gold, can they safely invest it? I think that with a little bit of courage and British grit we could deal with this question of the holdings of the foreign debt in a way that would assist the reconstruction of the world. For this reason I offer my protest at the way in which this conversion scheme is proposed. I do not believe it is showing anything like the necessary grit and punch behind a policy which alone can help us out of oar difficulties.

Sir JOHN POWER: I have listened very carefully to the whole of this Debate, but I have absolutely failed to discover what the Opposition is trying to advocate. Not a single constructive idea has come from them. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise)
made some hints at repudiation. I do not know whether he wishes to adopt the method of Russia—[Interruption]—I have been rather puzzled as to what the suffering poor have got to do with the National Debt. It has been pointed out that the service of the National Debt comes to some £300,000,000. Who pays the interest on the National Debt? The holders themselves. They pay among themselves in Income Tax, Surtax and Death Duties, and not £300,000,000 a. year, but £400,000,000 a year. There is the very simple proposition, that the very class who receive the benefit upon the holding of War Loan are the class that pays the interest on it. They pay 25 per cent. more. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that, they are going to get away with it when they talk about the suffering that is inflicted on the poor by this loan.
Another thing is quite obvious. It has been complained that the workers are worse off than they were some years ago. One might reasonably ask what else do they expect after two and a-half years of Socialist government? It was impossible to meet, the charges they incurred and expect to prosper. Then again, we have been told that this Government is proposing panic legislation, and we have all sorts of talk about "panic speeches." The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has advocated washing out all talk about the present crisis. He denies that there is a crisis. He says that it is better to do nothing. "Let us die quickly," I suppose is his motto. Let him realise that we cannot go on doing that. We have had to face the greatest crisis in our history, one that has been all the more serious because it has not been so obvious as some that we have had to face. Hon. Members opposite describe speeches made in the present crisis as "panic speeches," at a time when we have had to find by drastic means £244,000,000 to balance our Budget for the next 18 months. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what it is. It is no good for hon. Members opposite to talk about panic speeches. Their own Cabinet proposed to impose £56,000,000 of fresh taxation, economies and cuts. They ought not to forget, when they are talking about panic speeches, that their own Cabinet was
in a panic when it proposed those necessary measures. I see that the hon. Member for East Leicester repudiates the Cabinet—

Mr. WISE: I said, "Put an inquiry on."

Sir J. POWER: You ask me to inquire. I am inquiring. I would like to know whether the speeches on the gravity of the crisis in which the country finds itself have been justified or not. If the late Cabinet were not justified, why did they propose cuts which we have put into operation of £56,000,000? It is perfectly true that their hand faltered and that they ran away. I hope that the country will soon have an opportunity of expressing its opinion—[Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day, in regard to hon. Members opposite, that their place would know them no more. I think that prophecy will be found correct.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I do not propose to follow the rather attractive line of entering into the realms of prophecy as to what will happen at the next General Election. I wish to deal with one point made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power). He has answered a question which has very often puzzled some of us on these benches, and he has answered it in a way in which we have sometimes answered it ourselves. He indicated that the interest on War Loan is found by the people who are taxpayers. Some of us have long suspected that the people who are receiving War Loan interest receive as much in that way as they pay in taxes and that it would be an advantage to the community if these two items were cancelled out altogether. If the hon. Member desires to use this argument again, I would take the liberty of warning him that it is of a two-edged character.
We have been told again and again that the burden of taxation is always found by the Super-tax and Income Tax payers and by the wealthy members of the community. We now find, on the confession which has just been made, that those people get back again all that they have paid by way of interest. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members on the opposite side are coming at last to
a conclusion at which we arrived, that the taxes are not really found by the rich or by the leisured classes, but that the bulk of the burden falls upon the workers who are not able to draw part of their taxation back again in War Loan interest.
I did not rise to enter into close discussion of the subjects raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, but I notice that he complained that nothing in the way of constructive suggestion had come from this side of the Committee. Since the value of War Loan has increased some 40 per cent., in future efforts to make conversions of this character, exactly the same principle should be applied to the War Loan interest as has been applied in the past to wages. Why should those who have received advantage by their investment, an advantage created by national conditions such as a fall of prices, be in the fortunate position of not being subject to automatic falls in revenue such as affect the wage earner? I should like to see a conversion loan where it is not left to chance as to what the actual diminution in interest will be, according to the terms which are regarded as favourable at the moment, but where steps are taken towards a method of gradual repudiation of the inflated interest by a scheme which would provide that for a period of years there should be diminutions of one-eighth per cent. or one-quarter per cent., down to a really proper rate of interest, in line with the sacrifices which have been made by other members of the community.
6.0 p.m.
We have suffered since the War period a great diminution in the returns of the wage earner, but the advantage to the rentier and the investor has remained all that time. It has been suggested, in an argument which was put forward by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) that because certain portions of the War Loan were subscribed in the early years of the War, that it will be unjust to make a sweeping decrease in the interest payable to-day. Some figures have been taken out of the official returns which show that in the year 1918 the actual value of every pound raised in the country represented in gold not more than 9s. 8d. Commodities carried an abnormal profit at that time, so that translated into terms of goods every
pound was down to about 7s. 8d. As a result of measures taken by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1921 and again in 1925 by the return to the Gold Standard, a considerable alteration was made in the value of these investments, so that if the bulk of the War Loan was borrowed when the pound was about. 9s. or 10s., we are paying back to the bondholder 19s. 8d. for every 9s. or 10s. lent by him. If we are to accept the economies which have been made and the reductions in the pay of teachers and police and others, I suggest that the same principle might well apply to War Debt interest and that bondholders should not be the only people immune from that equality of sacrifice of which we have heard so much.
It was remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening this Debate said that there was to be no violation of the terms on which War Loan was issued. There is to be sanctity of contract with regard to finance and investment. It is interesting to compare that sentiment with the steps which have been taken with regard to the sanctity of the contracts between the Government and its own employés, such as the teachers, the police, the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen. I hope that when the terms of this Bill are put into operation, through the powers which we are now being asked to give, those responsible for the Conversion Loan will apply to this inflated interest the scaling-down principle which has been applied to people who are dependent for their livelihood on the wages which they earn. We are not complaining about this Clause but we hope that when conversion is carried out, the principle of equality of sacrifice will be imposed and that the rentier and the bondholder will be called upon to bear the same sacrifice as that which has been imposed on large numbers of the general community.

Mr. SMITHERS: I wish to make some remarks in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I suppose that when he rose to make that speech the hon. Gentleman was carrying out the orders of his new leader who has said that "it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose." But the only argument which the hon. Gentleman could think of, for opposing or criticising the present proposal, was to cite something that was done 12 years
go during War time. The hon. Gentleman complained, as I think also did the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) that in using arguments against Socialism I had made certain disparaging remarks. I never heard, in open and fair Debate a more gross tu quoque. I was supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his efforts to maintain the credit of the country and I was deprecating the attitude of the hon. Member for East Leicester and I think I may say also that of the late Financial Secretary, because they were not supporting the right hon. Gentleman in that object and I argued that they were bringing discredit to this country while I was trying to support its credit. I was stopped by the Chairman from proceeding on those lines and I do not propose to pursue that point further except to say that this morning a well known economist, Sir William Beveridge, writing in "The Times" refers to both policies now before the country and says that:
During the election, expectation of success for Labour would cause a flight from the pound by every possible device.

Mr. MacLAREN: I do not think it fair to misrepresent Sir William Beveridge in that way.

Mr. G. HARDIE: That is not the full quotation.

Mr. SMITHERS: I have already said that he refers to the policies of both parties and to the harm which he thinks would result. He says:
Either way headlong depreciation might result.
But he also used the other words which I have read. I do not want to misquote or misrepresent him in any way. I wish to answer another point raised by the hon. Member for East Leicester and I think by other speakers, who suggested repudiation or partial repudiation of debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of taxation."] Or, of taxation. Some hon. Members have suggested a possible diminution of interest but I suggest these are merely other terms for repudiation. The point is this. Hon. Members opposite have cited the cases of France and Australia where the rates were lowered. Hon. Members when they bring forward that argument forget that we are dependent on other countries for our
food supply. Australia has enough food to feed her people and so has France. I ask the Committee to bring this discussion back to the present situation and to ask what would be the price of the pound sterling if effect were given to the suggestions of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. G. HARDIE: Twenty shillings.

Mr. SMITHERS: That is not my opinion and it is not the opinion of those who know something about the question. We support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these proposals in order to try, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) has said to save the weekly wages of the people. If repudiation or diminution of interest or any such games as that were played then the pound sterling would depreciate very much and we should reduce purchasing power and wages in this country.

Mr. MAITLAND: I wonder if it is possible for us in this discussion to find some common ground and to approach this subject from a point of view other than the merely partisan point of view. May I venture to try to find some points upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me. We on this side along with hon. Members opposite appreciate that in connection with the taxation of the people of the country one must necessarily be influenced and guided first by the ability of the individual taxpayer to pay. Then, having decided on a sound general view of taxation with regard to various classes of society, I think it will be agreed that it would be a wise thing, especially when we are imposing taxation on a scale such as has never been known in this or in any other country, to ask ourselves "Are we taxing the people in such a way that, taking the long view, we are helping to serve the best interests of the country as a whole?" I think hon. Members opposite will agree that that is not an unreasonable or unfair basis upon which to proceed in dealing with this subject.
I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago what amount had actually been received in Death Duties over the past 10 years and the corresponding amount which had actually been applied to debt redemption over the same period. This is a very important matter
and is germane to this discussion because we are now discussing, perhaps inferentially rather than directly, the National Debt. I was surprised and I am sure the House was surprised to find that the total amount received in Death Duties over the last 10 years was £675,000,000 and the actual cash applied in the manner I have indicated during the same period was £467,000,000. That means a deficit of £208,000,000 or an average of £20,000,000 per year. Whatever may be our views as to the rate at which Death Duties are levied, we must all appreciate that they apply to the capital of the individual and that, having once collected that tax, you cannot impose it a second time. It is only available once, and if it is absorbed into the general finances of the State and spent as income of the particular year in which it is received a very serious question arises. We ought to ask ourselves whether, in fact, that way of raising taxation is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
With regard to the question of War Loan which is dealt with in Part III of the Bill, hon. Members are aware that of the total of £2,200,000,000 a very large part is held abroad. I may also remind hon. Members, however, that a large amount of that War Loan is held by trade unions, co-operative societies, friendly societies, savings banks, and other institutions which directly represent the wage earners or the smallest investors in our country and that they will be affected by whatever is done in this respect. Let us consider the various methods suggested. It seems to me that broadly speaking there are three ways in which we may approach this question and I suggest that, in the way in which some hon. Members opposite have dealt with it, they are doing a disservice to the country. They approach it by suggesting that there should be repudiation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said that!"] It was suggested by inference. I submit that sterling today is dependent, not upon the Gold Standard but upon the traditions of this country, and if any suggestion of a serious character were made that the indebted, ness of this country should be repudiated, we should be going a long way to destroy confidence.
The second method of approaching the question is by conversion and I think all
hon. Members ought to agree upon this Clause because its object is to place the Chancellor in a better position than he is in to-day to deal with the conversion of this stock. It would enable him to deal with it in such a way as to put it on more favourable terms, so far as the State is concerned. The third point of view is to deal with it by way of taxation, and I have already suggested that it is a wise thing to ask whether or not we are imposing taxation in a way that is in the best interests of the people as a whole. It is no use hon. Members suggesting that we can make the poor richer by attempting to make the rich poorer. It does not work out that way in practice. It may be an attractive theory, and a good platform theory, but it does not work out that way in practice. It works out in practice that the taxation to-day is of so heavy a character that people who are accustomed to employ labour have to cease to do so, and sooner or later it has quite an adverse effect from that which is advocated by hon. Members opposite.
With regard to the general rate of interest paid upon the securities of this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 16th of this month said:
The average interest upon the total of our National Debt was only about 3½ per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th September; col. 925, Vol. 256.]
Let us assume, in order to meet the arguments of hon. Members opposite, that the whole of the National Debt is represented by the wealthy classes, and let us assume that the rate is 3½ per cent. Then let us deduct Income Tax and Surtax, and we get down to a rate of interest on the whole of our National Debt, on those assumptions, which is equal, not to 3½ per cent., but to something like per cent. or 1½ per cent.
Some hon. Members have referred to proposals of the character that we should attempt to deal with our present indebtedness on the price of money as it was in 1920. Why 1920? The bulk of this money was not borrowed then. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), that 90 per cent. of the whole of the National Debt was borrowed before 1920, and much of the money lent had a much greater purchasing power then than it has to-day. If
you want to take a case of people who have lost and not made money in connection with national investments, take the holders of Consols, of which there is £700,000,000 outstanding, bearing interest at 2½ per cent. They have suffered a loss of something like 10s. in the pound. I think the real way to approach this question, in view of the very great crisis through which we are passing, is to ask what contributions we, as individuals, can best make in attempting to maintain the credit of our country. We should none of us, on any side of the House, do anything to depreciate any of the investments represented by securities issued by His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) on the very well-reasoned speech that he has delivered. If we had more of such speeches in this House, it would be of great assistance. I want to deal with a question suggested by the phraseology of this Clause. In the first Sub-section there is a reference made to the notice that is to be given, and further on there is a reference to
the expiration of the period of three months next following the day on which the notice was published.
How is that notice to be given, or to be received by the various holders of War Stock? May I point out the difficulty which another Department got into by simply publishing the terms on which ex-Service men might apply, and by placing a limit to the date of those applications and appeals? Many are the piteous letters that I and other hon. Members have received from these men, because they never saw the notice which was published in the Press, as many of them lived in districts and places where they never saw the papers. I want to point that out, as analogous to the position in which we find ourselves in regard to the publication of the notice referred to in this Clause. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of the people who hold this War Loan are scattered over the British Isles and elsewhere, some of them in villages where they would never see the publication of the notice in the Press.
Is it possible that the Treasury should adopt a very different means, and try to communicate direct with each individual
holder? Otherwise, after the three months have elapsed, and when the Treasury have decided that because they have not applied they are therefore consenting to the conversion of their loan, I can imagine what might happen. These people are mostly the people who can ill afford to convert, and if they do not receive notice, the Treasury will get into very serious difficulty, I am certain, when these people appeal months afterwards and say "I never saw the notice." Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us some information on that point, and if he cannot promise it now, say that the Treasury will take it into their very serious consideration, so as to prevent all possible difficulty of that nature arising.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I can certainly assure the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) that every possible step will be taken to bring this matter to the notice of every individual, as well as the general steps which will be taken. It will obviously be most necessary to avoid any semblance of bad faith, especially to the small and scattered holders to whom he referred, and consequently the fullest possible publicity will be given to the proposals, and steps taken, not merely by putting out a few notices in official newspapers and so on, but steps of an order of publicity comparable with that which was originally embarked upon to bring in the loans. In addition, we shall certainly get into touch with anybody individually with whom it is possible to do so.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Could not each individual stockholder be informed?

Major ELLIOT: Certainly, every individual, but, of course, there may be holders of bearer bonds and there may be corporations and so on which we do not know, but every individual whose address we have will certainly be communicated with. We have had a long discussion on the general terms of this question. There may be points which hon. Members may desire to raise on the particular Clauses in this group which we are taking now, and I suggest that we should now go through the particular Clauses, and any points which hon. Members might desire to raise on them I should be very glad to answer so far as lies in my power.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 12 (Power to make regulations), 13 (Indemnity to trustees and others and to the Bank, etc.), 14 (Provisions as to instruments with respect to War Loan) and 15 (Provision as to cash bonus), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Provisions as to income tax in certain cases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary a question with regard to this Clause. We had last night a short discussion on Clause 10, and Clause 16 seems to me to cover very nearly the same ground. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would explain wherein the difference lies between the two Clauses. I confess that they appear to be almost identical, but no doubt there is an explanation of the difference.

Major ELLIOT: Yes. It is true that these Clauses are, practically speaking, identical, and it is simply for technical reasons that it is necessary to put in these provisions again. The point is that though in substance the continuance of a 5 per cent. holding at, say, 4 per cent. is the same thing as the exchange of a 5 per cent. holding, in form it is different. For in the case of a continuance, in form the investor will have the same security at the time, whereas in an ordinary conversion he will have surrendered his security and got a new one in its place. That is a difference in form, and it was found impossible to devise a formula which would cover both cases. Complicated as are the two Clauses separately, that is nothing compared with the complications which would have occurred if we had tried to turn both into one, and that is the only reason for the occurrence of this Clause once more.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 17 (Provision for incidental expenses), 18 (Saving for statutory powers with respect to National Debt, including powers of Treasury as to arrangements with non-residents) and
19 (Interpretation), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment of s. 36 of 21 & 22 Geo. 5, c. 28.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I want to put a few points on this Clause, with which we are by no means satisfied. It will be remembered by the Committee that at an earlier stage we raised the question as to why the policy of limited borrowing in respect of works on roads and bridges was to be suddenly abandoned and why the entire expenditure in excess of the Road Fund resources for the present year should be put upon the current Budget of the year. I said at the time that perhaps the question was not so much one for the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary as for the Treasury, but the Parliamentary Secretary did his best to explain the reasons for this sudden change and reversal of policy. I am bound to say, however, that the answer which he gave did not at all convince myself or my hon. Friends that there was a good case for the change of policy on the part of the Government.
It will be remembered that in the original Finance Bill of this year provision was made for borrowing up to the extent of £10,000,000 in respect of expenditure on road and bridge construction. The reason for that was that the Labour Government had been so successful in stimulating the construction of necessary roads and bridges by the local authorities that the amount available in the Road Fund had become exhausted, and it was found necessary that money should be temporarily borrowed by the Treasury and carried on the Budget of the year for the time being. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) will not leave the Committee, as I want to put some points to him. It was considered in the Finance Act of this year that, in view of the budgetary position and the financial difficulties at that time, instead of putting that excess expenditure on the taxpayers we should take powers to borrow to the extent of £10,000,000 because the works were of a capital nature.
I am not going to engage in the hypocrisy of asserting that I was ever an enthusiastic borrower upon a large scale. I have perhaps a healthy proletarian dislike of getting into debt and borrowing, particularly as one has to pay large interest payments. So I cannot say that I was an enthusiastic borrower, particularly on the lines of "We can conquer unemployment," with its scheme for borrowing £200,000,000 for roads. When, however, we faced a financial position which, on the Budget of the year, was admittedly of some difficulty, when no one wished to impose more new taxes than necessary, I agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a legitimate thing to have a modest borrowing operation up to the extent of £10,000,000 to put things right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, again like myself, is not an enthusiastic borrower of big sums of money, said, speaking in the House on the Budget statement on the 27th April this year:
It will be necessary for the Exchequer to come to the assistance of the Road Fund this year to meet the cost of road schemes, including works expedited in connection with the present state of employment. The necessary power will be sought in the Finance Bill to enable a loan to be raised for this purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1931; col. 1401, Vol. 251.]
I remember, what every other hon. Member remembers, that that statement was received with loud Liberal cheers as a concession to the principle and substance of the policy for which they fought and to which they adhered. I want to know from the Treasury what is the financial cause for this change in policy within a few months. I do not say that it is necessarily a crime for this Government to reverse the policy of its predecessors, for in fact they have shown that they can reverse their own policy on financial matters. What, however, is the financial cause why borrowing to the modest extent of £10,000,000 in April was right and why it suddenly becomes wrong now?
When we have got that information from the Treasury, I want to know from the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green why the Liberal party, which pressed us so strongly to borrow fabulous sums, are now consenting that the limited power to borrow £10,000,000 should be abolished, and therefore consenting to
their policy being reversed. I ask my hon. Friend because I believe that he played an influential part in drawing up the policy of the Liberal party in this matter in the Yellow Book, which was the true father of "We Can Conquer Unemployment." He and the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare), notwithstanding the latter's new official position, owe it to their souls and consciences and to political history to tell us why this borrowing of £10,000,000 is wrong, and why it should be borne on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
We shall later consider a Supplementary Estimate of about £7,000,000 to put this upon the taxpayers this year. The programme has been reduced. I do not propose to discuss that in this connection, because we discussed it on the Schedule to the Economy Bill, but we have never yet had, certainly not from the Minister of Transport, though the Parliamentary Secretary did his best in the matter, a clear statement as to the financial necessity that causes the Government to put an additional burden upon the taxpayers all of a sudden, instead of carrying out the very limited borrowing operation which was contemplated under the Finance Act which was passed only this year. I suggest that before the Committee parts with this Clause, we ought to have a clear statement from the Financial Secretary, and a clear statement from the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green as to the change in his policy and that of the hon. Members with whom he is associated, for he played such a prominent and distinguished part in the borrowing policy of the Liberal party.

Major ELLIOT: I will respond at once to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, all the more because of what he calls his healthy, proletarian dislike of borrowing or getting into debt. These healthy proletarian principles have spread throughout the House, and the uneasiness which the right hon. Gentleman felt, and which he manifestly choked down, we could not help seeing in every twinkle of his glasses during the whole of the debating arguments in which he attempted to justify it to the House. There is not only one fund but two great funds which, not meeting their expenditure out of income, were borrowing upon a scale which called in question the whole stability of our budgetary position. I
can imagine the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues if we had stopped the borrowing for one of those funds while allowing the borrowing for the other to proceed. What indignation the right hon. Gentleman would have generated if we had stopped, as was the express and declared intention of every party in the House, including his own, borrowing for the Unemployment Insurance Fund while permitting borrowing for the Road Fund still to continue. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman and his friends making a most convincing case by saying, "What! are we to say that a bridge is more important than human life, and that a reduction in unemployment benefit is to be carried out but not a reduction in the expenditure on roads down which the joy rider can speed his way to the south coast?" I can imagine the indignation about the rentier class which would have bubbled from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to strain every nerve to avoid a check in the development of the country as much as, and indeed more than, he felt himself fully justified in doing, but it was clear as the spring passed into the summer, and as the development of the financial situation both at home and abroad evolved, that an economic crisis was arising in which continued borrowing was liable to lead the people of this country into an awkward position; and it was the policy of every party that the Budget should be balanced. I remember the right hon. Lady, the late Minister of Labour, saying that borrowing for the Unemployment Insurance Fund was a dishonest course, and further stating that she had been forced into this dishonesty although she did not like it. That is an illustration of the greatest importance to show to what length a policy of borrowing, begun with those doubts and misgivings which the right hon. Gentleman assured us he felt when he embarked on this course, will very rapidly lead Departments and indeed Governments.

Mr. MILLS: It was a continuation of borrowing.

Major ELLIOT: This was a beginning. It was begun by the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Transport. The
danger of borrowing on the security of this fund had been terribly exemplified in one of the other funds. Borrowing on this fund which, by itself and under happier circumstances, might have been a reasonable policy to pursue, was in the circumstances through which the country was passing not such as any Chancellor of the Exchequer could have continued to support. Therefore, it was necessary at any cost to call a halt and to make sure that the expenditure of the year was, so far as possible, met out of the revenue for that year. I am not going into the wider question to what extent you are justified in using revenue for capital expenditure, and whether there should or should not be a capital account of the State as well as an annual account, because that would lead me very far afield into the realms of finance on which we in this country have not embarked hitherto. The danger was there. The danger was growing. The danger was becoming obvious to all, and it was at that moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the policy of borrowing on the security of funds which had outrun their own revenue was a perilous policy—

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the fundamental reason why we had to borrow was because his right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had previously raided the fund and taken away money that we ought to have had to spend in this period? The right hon. Gentleman supported him in doing it.

Major ELLIOT: I am not going to embark on the question whether every penny which is derived from a certain class of person must be returned to that class. No one suggests that Super-tax payers can claim that every penny should be spent for their benefit. I know what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say if that were suggested. Would hon. Members suggest that every penny raised from the beer drinkers in the Beer Duty should be immediately returned to the beer drinker in increased and improved facilities for beer drinking? What claim can be made that every penny raised from motorists should he immediately returned to the motorists for their benefit? The right hon. Gentleman asked why the policy of borrowing on
the fund was reversed. It was reversed because of the immediate stringency, which was obvious to all and obvious to the right hon. Gentleman as much as to anybody. That is the reason why the policy has been reversed, and we ask the Committee to support us in the reversal of that policy.

Mr. STRAUSS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us the reasons why the Government thinks it desirable not to continue borrowing on the Road Fund. Apparently he considers that borrowing at all for this fund is a thoroughly unsound thing. That is, presumably, the reason why the Minister of Transport, who is sitting by his side, was looking rather uncomfortable during his speech, which was really directed against the policy supported by the Minister who, with other Liberal Members, have for the last two years advocated borrowing on the Road Fund as a sound and economical policy.

Major ELLIOT: I made it clear that it was owing to the circumstances in which the country found itself in the spring and summer of this year, and that this policy was a thoroughly unsound one in those circumstances.

Mr. STRAUSS: I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to put his hon. Friend in too great a difficulty, but he actually went considerably further than that and condemned borrowing for road purposes altogether. The reason given by the Financial Secretary was similar to that given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the other night, when he said that in order to give confidence to foreign bankers and lenders who were to grant money to this country to keep us on the Gold Standard, it was necessary that our finances should be completely balanced and that there should be no borrowing on the Unemployment Fund or the Road Fund. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously suggest that foreign bankers or lenders would be disturbed if we borrowed a sum of less than £10,000,000 for capital purposes such as roads, and that if we did they would withhold their funds? I do not think such a proposal ought to be put forward seriously. He knows, as everybody connected with finance knows, that roads are things on which capital expenditure is justified.
The Road Fund is not like the Unemployment Fund, where the money is paid away every year. Roads last for 50, 100 or even more years. There are roads in our country the foundations of which were laid by the Romans. Is it essential that all money spent on roads must be paid out of current revenue? If it is financially sound to take the money out of current revenue, why do the municipalities borrow, and continue to borrow? Is the Minister of Transport going to allow them to continue to borrow for their roads? Is it to be right for them and wrong for the State? And supposing it were necessary in a crisis and in order to get foreign confidence to curtail expenditure and stop borrowing for the Road Fund, does the same state of affairs exist to-day as existed when that decision was taken? As far as I can see, the Government, in a spasm of panic and hysteria, drew up a policy of curtailment of every form of expenditure, good, bad or indifferent, to deal with the emergency and to keep us on the Gold Standard.
Now that we are off the Gold Standard cannot we consider these various items of expenditure on their merits, or must we still go on with the programme which was conceived in that moment of panic? The attitude of the Government appears to be very much like that of a bolting horse. A horse will continue to bolt for a long time after he has left far behind him the object which originally terrified him. The Government started in August on a certain course because they were frightened of going off the Gold Standard, and they are continuing wildly and blindly on the same course, overlooking the fact that the circumstances have changed. I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is not wise now to consider expenditure on roads, whether it should be out of capital funds or current revenue, on the merits of the case? I have always understood that it has been a principle of the Liberal party, as well as of the Labour party, that in times of depression, when the savings of individuals are not being used for investment, they should be used by the State to build up the economic strength of the country and give work to unemployed people. Is not that principle as true to-day as it was a few months ago?
Owing to the industrial depression the accumulated savings of the people, are
greater to-day than for a long time past. The amount on deposit in the various banks was higher in 1930 than in any year since 1921, and the amount in July last was higher than in any July since 1923, because individuals are not investing their money. Surely it is desirable and economically sound that in such circumstances the State should borrow the money for such capital works as increase the amenities of the country and add to its efficiency as an economic unit. The State should borrow the money and give work to unemployed people instead of further taxing the country and adding to the burdens of already overburdened industries. What reason is there to-day why roads which will last for many years should not be financed out of borrowings rather than out of taxation?
There is another point I wish to put to the Minister of Transport, which I would like him to answer. This Committee and the country are entitled to an explanation, which so far we have not had from him or any other Liberal Member, of the reversal of policy which they are supporting. The Liberal party, and doubtless the hon. Member himself, went to the country on one specific thing —that they would conquer unemployment, and they put forward their definite plans. It is true to say that the election address of every Liberal Member was this book, "We can Conquer Unemployment."

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: You would not allow us to do it.

Mr. STRAUSS: I want to know why the hon. Member is reversing that policy. The sole mandate which the people gave to the Liberal party was to carry out the plans in "We can Conquer Unemployment"; and it was one of the essential points in that book that the big schemes to be undertaken would not be paid for out of taxation, but out of borrowing. I will quote one or two sentences. This book, after telling us of the miseries of the unemployed, and how easy it would be to set them to work on large schemes, goes on to say, discussing roads in particular, because they were the chief feature of the proposals:
It would be perfectly proper to charge the interest and sinking fund against the future income of the Road Fund.
Later, it says:
These proposals could be carried through without any additional charge in the way of taxation.
That is what they promised the people. It is the only mandate they had when they were returned to this House. It was put more specifically still in the pledge which was given at the time and signed by the Leader of the party, a pledge which was in every election address of every Liberal Member:
If the nation entrusts the Liberal party at the next election with the responsibilities of government we are ready with schemes of work, which we could put immediately into operation, work of a kind which is not merely useful in itself but essential to the well-being of the nation. The work to be put in hand will reduce the terrible increase of the workless in the course of a single year to normal proportions and will enrich the nation and equip it to compete successfully with all its rivals in the business of the world. These plans will not add one penny to national or local taxation.
Now a Liberal Minister of Transport is deliberately putting on to taxation these plans for carrying out road works. That action merits full explanation. If this money which is now being drawn from taxation had been borrowed there would be £7,000,000 which could be used for other purposes, and unjustifiable cuts need not have been made. I want to know if the plans in this book "We can Conquer Unemployment" are good plans, or are they nonsense? If they are nonsense I hope the hon. Member will come forward now and say that lie has seen that this policy was quite wrong, that it was bound to lead to disaster and that he will make a complete recantation in a white sheet; but if the policy enunciated there is sound economically and in the interests of the nation, why does he now advocate a policy which is diametrically opposed to it? Is it the case that he adopts one policy when there are only 1,250,000 unemployed, and then, when the numbers of the unemployed have increased to 3,000,000, says: "The situation is different; do not let us go on with these plans"? The other day he came to the House and proposed a cut of £8,000,000 next year in the expenditure under the Road Fund. According to a familiar calculation, that means that 32,000 men who would have had work for a year under the programme as originally prepared by the Labour Government are to
be deprived of that work. The Minister now comes along to put the burden, to the extent of £7,000,000 for this year, on the taxpayers of the country instead of borrowing the money, as he promised to do. What is the position of the Liberal party? Were they correct when they put their plans before the nation, or were they wrong? On the answer given by the Minister to the questions I have put to him will depend the credence we shall be able to give in future to the pledges of the Liberal party.

Major NATHAN: The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison), the late Minister of Transport, has challenged me by name about my vote in connection with matters which are the subject of this Debate, on the ground that I have some responsibility (which I at once accept), under the guidance of and in association with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for the proposals set forth in the Liberal Yellow Book, and in the pamphlet "We can Conquer Unemployment" which was referred to by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss). I accept that challenge. At the time when the Liberal party, or those more closely identified with the formulation of this policy, of whom I was one, were considering the matters there mentioned, we were faced with a relatively normal financial position and a relatively large and solvent Road Fund. During the early days of this Parliament, when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Ministry of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and other Members of the Liberal party, at that time sitting opposite and in opposition to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, did not abate their efforts to induce the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to give active effect to the policy, as regards roads, bridges and the like, in the Liberal Yellow Book and in the pamphlet "We can Conquer Unemployment."
7.0 p.m.
I say nothing about our efforts, our fruitless efforts, to induce the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government of which he was so distinguished a Member to take active steps in relation to housing, telephones and all the rest of the things which have been referred to. I confine myself to
the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible and which he conducted, if he will allow me to say so, with, in many respects, a knowledge and enthusiasm and an ability which commanded common admiration from all of us in every part of the House. But on the point to which he referred I would remind him of the speeches he made from this side of the House, as a Minister of the Government, and standing at that Box, in which time after time, he refused to take active and forward steps to carry out the policy of which he has to-day spoken of with approbation. He was pressed to do so by my colleagues of the Liberal party and myself, but that pressure was fruitless. It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Member to make those complaints as to the attitude of the Liberal party, nor to compare the situation with which the country is confronted to-day with the position as it was when those plans were prepared and when we pressed their performance on the late Administration. The Liberal party has supported the National Government in the pursuit of methods of economy and reduction of expenditure which we of the Liberal party are among the first to regret. It represents in our view a setting back, but for the time a necessary setting back, of the hands of the clock of progress, which we have done so much to put forward in years gone by, and with which we shall have so much to do in the future. We regard it as a temporary intermission of our labours. But sound finance stands first and foremost in the essential policy of this country, and no measures, however attractive and useful in themselves, can withstand the pressure of the necessity of sound finance. Sound finance, more necessary now than at any time, demands that, however regretfully and reluctantly, we should for the moment stay our former progress. The late Minister of Transport will not himself dissent from that because it will not be contradicted that, before resigning office, the late Administration had itself very much the same proposals in regard to limitation as are now put forward. If I am mistaken in that, I shall no doubt be corrected.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: These are temptations to disclose Cabinet secrets which I learned as a Privy Councillor. I told the House the other night that I would not do it and the temptations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not make me rise to the bait.

Major NATHAN: I would be the last to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to disclose any secrets. I am content to rest myself on the statement of the Leader of the Opposition on the volume of economies proposed by the late Administration. While I do not want him to confirm to me in terms that such an economy was included in the £56,500,000, I take it from the statements that have been made so often from that bench that that was, in fact, the position. I believe it is impossible to carry forward large measures of national reconstruction except at a proper time and an proper terms by means of borrowed money. I do not believe that national reconstruction can be effected out of the annual revenue, provided no borrowing is made, except on proper terms and at a time when the national finances and the credit of this country, both at home kind abroad, make that permissible. In saying that, I speak for myself.
When the Government is contemplating an average of unemployment of 3,000,000 in a year, which must mean at the peak an unemployment figure of 3,500,000 or even 4,000,000, it will not be found possible to maintain those unemployed in complete idleness without very grave risks to our social structure, and work must be found for them at one time or another. It is unlikely that the work, which it will be necessary to find, can be financed out of annual revenue.
I make no disguise of my belief in that position or of my belief that it will be unwise in the highest degree, in the present critical stage of our finances and with the present apprehensions both at home and abroad as to the future of sterling, to raise money at this moment for any purpose save under the most stringent necessity. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Minister of Transport, will not find me backward in supporting all well-considered measures calculated to improve our national economy and to assist in national development by whatever means of finance may be apt and
sound, according to the proper and recognised canons of finance and at the proper time.

Mr. EDE: We have just listened to the swan song of Liberalism in this House, as far as this particular matter is concerned. The hon. Member, after all, did very scant justice to my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport. The Liberal party in its famous Yellow Book said:
We are ready with schemes of work which we can put immediately into operation.
I speak as a member of one of the great road authorities of the country who went to my right hon. Friend with my colleagues, with definite schemes, and no definite scheme that has been put before the right hon. Gentleman was ever turned down. I challenge the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) and the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), if they are still in the same party or in the same fraction of the party, unitedly, jointly or severally, or in any other way they like to do it, to mention any single scheme of road improvement, which was placed before my right hon. Friend and which was a definite scheme, that was turned down. It is notorious that on every occasion the Liberal party were challenged to say what definite schemes they had that had not been sanctioned by my right hon. Friend, and at no time were they able to do it.
I could not help admiring the undisguised glee with which the Minister of Transport, behind the back of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, greeted the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) when he reminded the House of the escapades of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were faced during our term of office with the fact that this fund had been badly raided, and we are now faced with the fact that these works are to be financed on a basis financially unsound. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green to talk about the canons of sound finance, but what sound finance is there in financing out of current revenue a road which will last for 20 or 30 years without substantial repair?
How can he expect the highway authorities of the country, unassisted or less assisted by the Ministry of Transport, to be able to carry through those schemes, in which I understand he still believes and which he thinks will have to be put into operation very speedily? He thinks that in the coming winter there will be 3,500,000 unemployed. I do not wish to be an alarmist, but I doubt very much, with the policy pursued by His Majesty's present advisers, whether we shall have fewer than 4,000,000 unemployed at Easter. I will say to the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green that he will not find it safe to hold meetings in Bethnal Green if the policy of His Majesty's Government still continues and he remains a supporter of it. He will find that people there are not prepared—

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): We are not discussing unemployment at the moment. We are discussing a Clause dealing with the Road Fund.

Mr. EDE: I was endeavouring to point out—perhaps I did it rather awkwardly—the effect of this Clause upon unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member dealt with it very efficiently indeed—so much so that I realised he had got off a mere reference to unemployment in connection with the Road Fund and was discussing unemployment generally.

Mr. EDE: I can very well understand the joy of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green when he realises that I am not going to chase him any more, but I may get up into the Highlands of Scotland again and be in order before I have finished. I desire to know from the Minister of Transport if this alteration of national policy means that the same alteration is to be made in local policy. Is he going to frown at schemes put up to him where the local authority propose to spread the expenditure over a term of years? Is he going to recommend the Minister of Health not to grant loans for five or 10 years on road schemes, because the Minister of Transport will be confined to what he can get out of the national taxes, whereas the local authority still has the power of going to the Ministry of Health and asking for a loan? We
had a very alarming hint with regard to that matter from the Minister of Hearth at Question Time to-day, when he said that he was trying to dissuade local authorities from carrying through private street improvements at the present time. In order to help the frontagers it has been the custom for those private street improvements to be carried out on a five or 10 years loan basis—generally in my part of the country on a five years loan. Is what the Minister of Health said this afternoon an indication of Government policy Are we to understand that they are not going merely to stop borrowing themselves, but that they are going to stop the local authorities from borrowing?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unduly, but really he must look at the Clause that we are now discussing. The question is whether this money is to be provided out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money voted by Parliament. We cannot discuss the whole question of the policy of the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. EDE: I gather the point is that, if this Clause is not passed, the present policy will be pursued of borrowing in advance on the Road Fund. If it is passed, we shall then be compelled to raise the money in each year. I desire to get a very definite answer from the Minister as to whether he intends to impose the same policy on the local authorities, who are nominally free, but who, in fact, have to secure sanction for their loans from the Ministry. I can assure the Minister that it is a point which is giving the greatest anxiety to the road authorities and, if he could say anything reassuring to them it would to some extent enable them to carry on with their work and prevent them shutting down unduly. The whole policy is bad, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will advise the whole party to go into the Lobby against these proposals, because they represent a policy of despair which can only lead to the worst possible effects in the various localities in the Doming winter.

Sir B. PETO: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) seems to have left out the principal defence for the change of policy which is now being supported by the Members of the Liberal
party. May I point out that Clause 20, which we are now discussing, is the direct outcome of the May Report and in it there is a definite recommendation that all borrowing should stop for the Road Fund, and that only matters of absolute necessity should be undertaken in the present financial state of the country. What was the origin of the May Report I The resolution appointing the committee on National Expenditure was proposed by the Liberal party, and it was unanimously accepted by this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
That Resolution was put forward because the Liberal party, although they were in favour of the programme laid down in the Yellow Book, were also in favour of economy, and they persuaded the House to accept the resolution setting up the Committee on National Expenditure, and this was done in order to stop the headlong rake's progress which the country was pursuing. I am not blaming the late Government so much because the position was that the Liberal party were constantly whipping them up. The recommendations of the May Committee were placed before the country, and the proposal we are now discussing is one of those recommendations. Therefore, the principal line of defence for the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green has gone, the Liberal party having changed the device on the cover of the Yellow Book to the San Benito of the Auto da Fé. The outcome of the May Report which the Liberal party were mainly instrumental in obtaining should make the late Minister of Transport forget his earlier policy, which is one of the things that is most strongly condemned in the May Report, because they recommend that, in the interests of the financial stability of the country, borrowing must stop.
I am convinced that the policy of the May Report is absolutely vital, and I support the Government proposals in this House with the greatest pleasure, although I am aware that this is a Finance Bill which imposes enormous new burdens on the taxpayers of the country, and although its finance is certainly not in accordance with the tenets and methods we believe in for raising taxation. Nevertheless, I believe that these proposals are absolutely necessary under present circumstances, and as far as this
Clause is concerned there is no hesitation on this side of the House on the part of any members of the Conservative party in supporting this Bill.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The discussion which has taken place on this Clause has included references to certain intellectual treatises concerning various political parties. We have heard a good deal about the Yellow Book, and that seems to be the book from which all political parties form a new programme when they need one. The latest political treatise has been issued by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), and, although it is a white book, it is yellow in heart. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss) seemed to be much concerned about these cuts; in fact, he appeared to know nothing whatever about any cuts having been considered. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Transport ran his Department. Did he when serious, even desperate, work was at hand, turn the hon. Member for North Lambeth out of the room?

Mr. STRAUSS: I pointed out that the policy being pursued is one which was opposed by the Liberal party.

Mr. PYBUS: At any rate, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), in a speech which he made recently, appeared to know nothing about these cuts. I had to refer in the last Debate to the virgin innocence of the late Parliamentary Secretary as to any knowledge of these cuts. He had not apparently heard of them. As for the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Transport, shall we be big and adopt his own attitude towards this horrible subject and regard the whole question as one which is not discussed between gentlemen? I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) because his speech has made it quite unnecessary for me to say anything whatever in defence of these proposals, and, if it is not out of order, I would like to refer to the subject that we are discussing. We are discussing a Clause which has nothing whatever to do with anything except the mailer in which money used for national development is to be provided for in the national account. Any expenditure on roads in
the present financial year must not come out of the Consolidated Fund, but it must be provided by a Vote in this House. I cannot understand why there is so much objection to this Clause, because it is one which really safeguards the privileges of this House, and it provides that the Minister of Transport shall not be able to dip his hand deeply into the Consolidated Fund. Every Member of the Committee will have a perfect right to criticise such expenditure, and, for these reasons, I trust the Committee will now agree to this Clause.

Mr. WINTERTON: I have listened carefully to the Debate on this Clause, but up to the present there does not seem to have been any references to the great human problem as to whether we are going to have as much road work done in the future as in the past. It is all very well to tell hon. Members that this is a Clause to transfer the means of getting the money from the Consolidated Fund to direct taxation.

Mr. PYBUS: I did not refer to the human problem of unemployment, because it would not be in order.

Mr. WINTERTON: What I desire to call the attention of the Committee to is that unless we can have an assurance that when the next Finance Bill is brought into the House of Commons there will be as generous and adequate provision for road construction as was possible under the powers granted under the Consolidated Fund Act, we shall, in effect, be diminishing the usefulness of this kind

of work in providing employment for the people. The proposed methods of dealing with this question fall flat unless the Minister of Transport can tell us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to guarantee that there will not be a less amount of money spent on roads in the future.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now definitely going beyond my Ruling. Up to the present I have allowed a certain amount of elasticity, but the hon. Member must not go into a serious debate on questions which I have ruled out of order.

Mr. WINTERTON: What is now proposed is not a method of economy, but a method of putting greater charges on the taxpayer for road work next year than would have obtained if the previous method had not been abandoned. In the interests of a great number of men who, up to the present, have found healthy employment on the roads, I protest against the method of economy suggested in the Finance Bill, which will effect no real saving to the ratepayers, and will prevent the carrying out of a good deal of much-needed, useful work. There is no possibility of this kind of enterprise adding any advantage to the nation. This is a retrograde step, and one which we on these benches so deplore that we shall go into the Lobby to vote against it.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 141.

CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions in cases where Treasury has power to borrow money.)

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, after the word "not," to insert the words "citizens of or."
The purpose of this Amendment and of the following Amendment in Subsection (1, b) of Clause 22—in line 18, after the word "in," to insert the words "nor citizens of "—is to take out of
the operation of this Clause British subjects resident or partly resident abroad. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Treasury to issue securities free of Income Tax, and also, under Sub-section (1, b), free of other taxes. When this matter was under discussion on the Financial Resolution, we were told by the Treasury that the corresponding paragraphs of the Financial Resolution were there because it was necessary to provide some inducement to foreign holders of 5 per cent. War Loan, which was issued free of Income Tax, to convert. But I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Clause in the Finance Bill goes very much further than, apparently, we were led to understand on the previous occasion.
There may be a case for inducing foreigners who are exempt from Income Tax in respect of their present holdings of 5 per cent. War Loan to convert on a similar basis, although as a matter of fact that particular practice has been condemned by Royal Commissions and Committees which have examined it. But the purpose here apparently is to enable the Treasury at any time to issue securities entirely unconnected with conversion operations to foreigners or to British subjects resident abroad, which are immune from taxation. I should like to know the reason why the Government should at this moment offer an inducement to British subjects to take themselves and their capital abroad and to fly from the pound. I should particularly like to know what their purpose is in regard to paragraph (b). That is not a question of Income Tax. Under that paragraph powers which the Treasury have at this moment for levying Income Tax on the estate of British subjects who, though they die abroad, hold property in this country would disappear, at any rate in respect of any bonds issued with this condition.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member wishes to discuss both his Amendments together. If that is so, there is no objection to that course on the understanding that no discussion will be permissible on the second Amendment.

Mr. WISE: I think that is the more convenient course, and that was sug-
gested to me by your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, at an earlier stage of the discussion. The present law is that, if you can prove foreign domicile, a very tricky and difficult point of law, you can escape duty on foreign holdings, but you are still liable to duty on property in the United Kingdom, including War Loan. The effect of this Clause is that you can gain immunity from Death Duties even though you hold British Government securities. I think it is very undesirable that the Treasury should have power at all to issue securities which are immune from taxation. I think it is very undesirable in the case of foreigners, and more undesirable in the case of British subjects. A good many people have threatened from time to time to leave the country and take their property abroad in order to evade taxation. They have threatened less in the last few days since the pound has been over par, but I have no doubt on the first convenient opportunity they will start again.
I do not see any reason at all why we should offer any special inducement, particularly of this sort, to such persons to retain the security which the country can give and has given in respect of its Government stock whilst obtaining by residence abroad immunity from British taxation. British citizens who live in Belgium or the South of France for more than six months in the year—six months and a day is sufficient for their purpose —in order to avoid British Income Tax, constantly use the services and the prestige and the advantage which British citizenship 'brings. They never fail—no one complains of it—to claim the protection of British consular and diplomatic officers and the British Army in order to obtain all the advantages that arise from the existence of this country and its institutions, paid for by the British taxpayer. Moreover, a good many of them seem to spend a great deal of their time in offering advice, through the columns of "The Times," as to how we should conduct our affairs. There is no reason from the point of view of the general administration of taxation, and there is no reason at all in equity and in justice, why we should offer any opportunities for the evasion of payment of British taxation.
At this moment, when we are told it is only possible for the Government to carry on the institutions of the country by
forcing small children to pay a penny to go into Kew Gardens, it is preposterous to give opportunities to people like Lady Houston and others to pay large sums to the bar—the bar will probably benefit more than anyone else out of this provision—to argue the very intricate and difficult cases that will arise if they can, under this paragraph, manage to evade British taxation. This is a proposal to give the Government power to issue securities, at any time without coming to the House, without reference to anyone, which will be immune from taxation. It is an opportunity which we do not think the Treasury ought to have without coming to the House on every occasion. It has nothing to do with conversion operations. It has nothing to do with the immediate problem of balancing the Budget. It is the other way in that respect. It will make the Budget more difficult to balance in the future. It is a method by which in five years time we may be faced with the sort of arguments we have heard this evening—as to their merits I have nothing to say—that, if we try to bring in people who have taken their money abroad for the purpose of evading taxation, we are guilty of a breach of faith and of repudiation.
If this Clause goes through, and if the Treasury uses the power which it will then have of issuing securities which will offer an easy way for wealthy persons to evade taxation, we shall not, in future, pay any attention in this case, whatever happens in others, to the charge of repudiation. We are not going to be bound by any dodges of this sort binding our hands or the hands of any Government in the future. This scheme of issuing stock free from tax, whether to foreigners or to British citizens, is thoroughly bad. It may be necessary in the case of foreigners in the case of a conversion loan, but I see no reason at all why the Treasury should be given the wide general power of evading the control of the House in enabling individuals to evade taxation which this Clause might give.

Major ELLIOT: I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding the hon. Member's mental processes. His line seems to be that, if you cannot do enough to people, you should make faces at them. The proposal here is quite simple. It is to continue a power which we have had before with the object of facilitating
conversion. The hon. Member went through a long argument to prove that this was disadvantageous to the British Treasury. Of course it is, but we have to weigh that up against the balance of disadvantage to the British Treasury, in carrying through conversion, of having suddenly to find a sum in cash. How does the hon. Member propose to deal with that?

Mr. WISE: Are you asking me?

Major ELLIOT: Indeed I am. How does the hon. Member propose to deal with the person who does not like the bargain that is offered and, consequently, refuses to convert?

Mr. WISE: There are various ways of dealing with that. Are you talking of the foreigner or the British subject?

Major ELLIOT: It is a little hard. I listened patiently to the hon. Member and then he carries on a conversation with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price). I do not complain, but here you are dealing with a commercial transaction. The Treasury desires to have power to convert. Conversion will need to carry facilities which are advantageous to the person whom you desire to induce to convert. Granted that it is a privilege, the question is whether the granting of the privilege is a greater disadvantage to the country than the withholding of the privilege and the forcing of the individual in question not to convert.

Mr. WISE: Does the hon. and gallant. Gentleman read the Clause as being limited to conversion operations? It is perfectly general. You can issue stock under any Act. It says nothing about conversion and nothing about 5 per cent. War Loan.

Major ELLIOT: The Treasury take a wide power which it is not intended in any way to extend generally or to anyone to whom it is not urgently necessary as a commercial transaction to extend it.

Mr. WISE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept words limiting the Clause to the conversion that we have been considering, and to foreigners?

Major ELLIOT: Not on any account. This conversion may not cover simply the Five per cent. War Loan. It may be necessary to deal with other conversions.
The hon. Member talks about a fertile field for lawyers. His words would mean a fertile field for lawyers. "Citizens of the United Kingdom" is a term absolutely unknown to the law. It has no meaning. "British subjects" will not do either. It would include all the inhabitants of the Dominions, and you certainly do not want to discourage inhabitants of the Dominions from holding securities of this kind. The only remaining test that you have is domicile or ordinary residence, and it is with reference to these that the Clause is framed. The hon. Member argues the case most convincingly from the point of view of abstract theory, but he never gets into touch with the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that stock has been issued in the past under these conditions. These are not new conditions. They are not brought out for the first time. They are customary provisions. Both 5 per cent. War Loan and 4 per cent. Funding Loan were issued on these terms. That is the problem to which the hon. Member must address himself. How does he propose to deal with this question?
8.0 p.m.
It is no doubt very annoying that there are people who are domiciled out of the United Kingdom and who have their funds outside the Kingdom. I am not making any apology for them. I am not doing any more than registering the fact that such persons exist. I am not making any excuse, though I am prepared to argue the case when the time comes. I am dealing with the facts. Here is a person who has a certain kind of security which carries certain rights. We desire to carry out a conversion operation. We do not wish to have to pay off in cash the great mass of these securities. We find that it is necessary for commercial reasons, to allow these privileges to continue as they have done in the past. It is very convenient if we can dictate our own terms, but we cannot. You have to carry through a bargain and consider what terms you can offer. The hon. Member did not address himself to that point at all. He argued quite convincingly that it was a great pity that such things should be, and he might have quoted a number of authorities. He might have quoted the Colwyn Committee. Many
committees have deprecated the issue of securities with tax exemptions. Of course it is a nuisance, but it is a matter of very small moment in comparison with the importance to the country of facilitating the conversion of 5 per cent. War Loan. The whole argument of the case is that we are dealing with a practical problem.

Mr. WISE.: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the point which I put two or three times, as to why it is necessary to take powers not covering the conversions provided for under various Clauses of the Act, but covering the issue of any stock under any Act? That is what I want to know.

Major ELLIOT: If I have satisfied the hon. Member on the other points, I am perfectly willing to deal with that point also. I should like, first of all, to see whether we have cleared up and disposed of the first part of the argument. The hon. Member will not even agree to that. It seems, then, a little unnecessary to ask me to prove the smaller point if he does not even concede the larger one. I will give him an answer. The reason why we are taking general powers is that if we put those powers into Part III we should not be able to use them at all unless we began by giving formal notice to repay. We might desire to carry out other operations. Upon this matter we have to rely upon the officers of the Treasury to safeguard the interests of the British taxpayer and of the British Treasury. I do not think any accusation has been brought against them in the past that they were remiss or lax in these cases, but rather that they were over-scrupulous and over-exacting. The general case for the Clause is the case more or less against the Amendment. The Amendment, however, touches a narrower point than the Clause itself. The Clause takes power to issue securities both to foreigners and to persons who may be Englishmen, Scotch-men, Welshmen or Ulster men, but are residing outwith the country.
As to the general point of foreigners, I can do no more than say that the argument which I advanced to the Committee, that it is desirable not to have to pay off great sums in cash, is the governing argument. The narrower point should thus be confined only to foreigners and not to citizens of this country. But I say that the general argument that you do
not wish to pay over sums in cash, whether those bonds are tendered by citizens of this country residing abroad or by foreigners living abroad, holds for both of these cases. I do not wish in any way to ride out of the matter on the technical question of domicile, and I can assure the hon. Member that words such as he has drawn would not cover the case. I am willing to argue the general case. He might say that if those words did not cover the case, it would be for the Parliamentary draftsmen to bring forward words which did. I am willing to accept that argument, but the object is not one which can be carried out under this Clause with reference to the particular machinery he has in view.
Many proposals have been brought forward for the purpose of dealing with British subjects going abroad. We have seen them adopted in other countries in Europe, and possibly in time to come they may be adopted here. We have seen proposals adopted by the Italian, Government and by the German Government. There are many ways in which it is possible to deal with the nationals of a country residing abroad and to place upon them a greater share of the taxation of the country than they have previously been paying. But I assure him that the proposals which he has brought forward would defeat his own end, if we placed upon the shoulders of this country a heavier burden instead of a lighter burden, a burden of finding great sums in cash instead of carrying out a conversion, and for these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I really think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has dealt with the Amendment brought forward by my hon. Friend in a most flippant way. He attempted to start his speech by putting a, number of clever and adroit questions which he thought would put my hon. Friend into a corner, and, having failed in that, he attempted, quite in vain, to substantiate a case against the Amendment by putting the case of the Clause as a whole. The Financial Secretary has never really answered the fundamental question as to why it is necessary to take absolutely general and unlimited powers, when, as he says, the only object is to deal with conversions of certain existing loans. There may be an argument for saying
that you have at the present time certain holders of existing loans, and that you may want in the early future to induce those people to convert. There is the 5 per cent. War Loan and the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and there may possibly be—I do not know—other loans in the same position. It is an argument which at any rate can be put forward where you have holders of those loans who have the precise conditions which are covered here, that you must in a conversion give the Treasury power to put in the same conditions. But that is no argument whatever why you should give general powers of this kind.
The Financial Secretary says that if this had been put into the previous part of the Bill, there might have been some complications. Surely he will not say that it is outside the power of the draftsmen—we know that the Government draftsmen are very able, especially when assisted by the advice and instruction of the Financial Secretary himself—to use words which limit the provisions of this Clause to the particular conversions it may be desired to effect. If instead of choosing such a Clause he chooses to put forward this very much wider provision, he cannot be surprised if we object to it. He said: "Oh, you must trust the Treasury. The Treasury is a very wise institution. It is not likely to do anything which is undesirable from the taxpayer's point of view. Therefore, throw the reins on to the horse's neck, because it is a jolly good horse and it will not run away."
Let us examine the position. What is the sole reason why we have carried Part III through the Committee? It is because the Treasury during the War made a fundamental blunder in its terms of prospectus in regard to the 5 per cent. War Loan. I pointed out earlier in the day—and I do not think that it was seriously challenged by anyone who knew anything about. it—that had the prospectus been of a slightly different form, which would not have affected, as far as I can see, the psychology of the investor, we should have had none of the difficulties we are experiencing at the present time. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to come down to the Committee and say that the House of Commons need take no care as to the precise limits of the power it gives because we can trust
the Treasury always to do the right thing, seems to be entirely derogatory to the dignity and privileges of this Committee. It is our business in the House of Commons to safeguard the provisions we make, although I should be the very last person to have any adverse doubt about the Treasury, whose value I know fully as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he has only been Financial Secretary for a comparatively short time. I have certainly a very great respect for the Treasury, but that is no reason why Parliament should be asked to give the Treasury powers which are quite unnecessary and go far beyond the needs of the case.
I will come to the needs of the case and more particularly to the Amendment. We recognise on this side of the Committee quite as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite that as far as foreigners are concerned it will be very difficult indeed to insist upon an entirely new basis, or new terms for a conversion as against the existing stock. Therefore as far as, at any rate, the Front Bench are concerned, I could not support a proposal which would prevent the conversion by compelling foreigners to accept cash or a taxable loan. But this Amendment is confined solely to British subjects, and it is the obvious intention of my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment not only to exclude foreigners, but citizens of the Dominions, and I think that that is a sound course. That is no ground: at all why Englishmen and Scotsmen should have the privileges contained in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), which is, I think, a very serious matter indeed.
My hon. Friend in moving the Amendment pointed out—and I do not think that the Financial Secretary has denied it—that at the present time subjects of this country, even though they may be domiciled abroad, are liable on account of property held in this country. I do not know, but I imagine that it includes holdings of British loans. But if it is not so, no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us. If in fact loans which are not declared to be tax free are included in the estate of a British subject who is domiciled abroad and thereby becomes liable to Death Duty, I think that it is a very serious thing in-
deed in that case, if it be so, that they are to be rendered free of all liability. The hon. and gallant Member says that it is so according to the present 5 per cent. War Loan and the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and if we are going to alter the position, we shall have to pay these people in cash. I realise as far as the foreign holdings of these loans and the 5 per cent. War Loan in particular, are concerned, that it would be a very considerable amount, but I should very much doubt whether any considerable sum was involved, as far as British subjects are concerned. I should imagine it was comparatively small and that the amount we should have to find in order to pay them off need not be very seriously considered for that reason.
In any case a very dangerous practice was carried out during the War at a time when there was very loose thinking about these loans and when money was urgently required by the Government of the day, and when they gave very generous terms in respect of the loans. It will be very dangerous to carry out that practice in the future. Even if we have to find a small amount of cash in order to deal with the case of the British subjects who are not at this time domiciled in this country, the small additional burden of cash we shall have to find in consequence is fully worth while if it prevents us from being committed in the future to these very serious provisions. So far as paragraph (a) is concerned, the hon. and gallant Member has made out no case whatever for resisting the Amendments, and so far as paragraph (b) is concerned I think his case is very much worse. Unless we have some completely different answer put before us, we shall certainly vote solidly in favour of the Amendments, and I suggest to the Government that they are making a great mistake in resisting the substance of them.

Mr. MacLAREN: One cannot but admire the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the hon. and gallant Member in trying to circumvent the difficulty which he admits exists. It seems to me that we cannot define what is a British citizen, or if we attempt to do so litigation would run riot. Even then we might not be successful in circumventing the evasion which these Amendments are attempting
to stop. If there are standing contracts in regard to previous loans and it would be tantamount to breaking our word or our bond if we were to curtail the payments due, one can, of course, appreciate the difficulty. On the legal point one can see the necessity of using the words "any taxation present or future," in paragraph (b), but in the use of these words the word "future" might be regarded also as covering any future loans. That is a point against which we are protesting. I do not agree that the ingenuity of the Treasury or even of my hon. and gallant Friend is at a standstill, and that no device can be found in the English language or in legal terminology to make safeguards against any evasions in the future. I am speaking specifically of British subjects.
I will give an example of what is going on. The other day, a letter arrived at the House, and its recipient, a Member of this House, showed it to me. It was from relatives of his who have been Indian civil servants, who have retired at middle age with a very nice competence. I do not grudge them that, but they are refusing to come home. They have written to England intimating that they have settled down on the Continent, in a colony of retired civil servants from India, with whom they are enjoying pensions and refusing to come home. The letter states bluntly that they are not coming home to be subjected to the heavy taxation of this country. They go on in the letter to give my hon. Friend a long lecture on the tendencies of the Labour party and to show why he should support the National Government. Good, loyal patriots, enjoying the dignity, the reputation and the protection of the British Empire! Born, bred and educated in this country, qualified here for their tasks and for the salaries that they drew, they are living on the Continent, to avoid British taxation; living, as they deem it to be, at a lower cost, and then dabbling in our politics and giving us curtain lectures as to how we should behave, but taking care not to come here, lest they be made subject to our taxation.
These same people have invested in the loans that are the subject of our discussion to-night. I appreciate the difficulties that might arise in trying to
secure tribute from these people who are avoiding taxation on the Continent, but I object to the loose manner in which the two paragraphs are drawn. It is high time that the Committee awoke to the fact of this constant practice of evasion by people who cry from the housetops about patriotism and supporting the British Empire, and yet continue to do this mean thing. I am not objecting to our fulfilling obligations which have been entered into in connection with previous loans. There may be something to be said for our not doing anything that would hinder foreigners entering into our loans, but I do say that the time has come when we should not give exemptions in the future, whatever may have been entered into in the past. The time has come when we should deal with this form of evasion. While admitting that, there is difficulty in drawing Clauses which would meet the objects at which we are aiming, I think this Debate will be fruitful in that it will draw the attention of the Treasury to what is going on, if they are not already conscious of it, and that this House will take steps, more especially in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, to call upon those dear, loyal subjects of the British Empire to come within the ambit of the law, and not to escape in the future.

Major ELLIOT: The case quoted by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is exactly the kind of case which illustrates the difficulty. This is obviously not a party matter. We are examining it from the point of view of how we can best protect the revenues of this country. There can be no doubt that one of the grievances felt by citizens of this country is that other citizens reside abroad or go abroad from this country and escape a portion or the whole of the heavy taxation to which those who remain at home are subjected. Let us, however, address ourselves to it as a practical matter. The Treasury will be more than grateful to the Committee if it can bring its mind to bear upon this subject and make constructive suggestions which it will be possible to carry into effect. For that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) for having submitted his Amendment, although I do not think it will carry out the object he has in view.
Let me examine the case put forward by the hon. Member for Burslem. He quotes the case of an Indian civil servant. That Indian civil servant has earned his salary and pension, not in this country, but in India. He says that that Indian civil servant has invested in these loans. That may be so, but there is nothing to compel him to invest in them. You have to attract him. There is no law which says that he must invest his money in 5 per cent. British War Loan.

Mr. WISE: He gets his pension in sterling.

Major ELLIOT: He has earned this money, not in this country, but in India, and he is drawing his pension at the end of the day, not from this country, but from India. The hon. Member for Burslem says that it is a shame that he should hold this loan free of taxation. I cannot conceive any method by which we can prevent him from selling that stock. He may be living in Italy or France, and he may sell the loan, and buy dollars. It is the last thing that we should wish to do in this country, to bring pressure to bear which would have that effect in regard to these amounts be they large or small. The hon. Member for East Leicester said that the amounts were usually small. Granted that they are small, the last thing that we want to do is to have these moneys transferred, say, into dollars. For that reason, I beg the Committee to consider this matter, not from the point of view of an abstract desire, but from the point of view that when a British citizen resident abroad has money to invest we desire that he should invest it in our funds. If he does not like the security which we offer, it is open to him to buy Continental funds or American funds. We have to remember that if he is the holder of British funds it is open for him to sell those funds and buy others.
Whatever we may think of the equity of the matter we have to face the fact that there are burdens which the residents in the United Kingdom suffer which are not suffered by citizens resident outside the United Kingdom. As a mere matter of practical administration the arguments advanced by hon. Members do not
in fact carry out the proposal they have in view.

Mr. PRICE: We all agree that we should not approach this problem from the point of view of trying to score party points. The Financial Secretary has referred to the cake of Indian civil servants who are drawing pensions. I would suggest that there are other sources in this country which are no doubt known to the Treasury. There are companies in the City which have been engaged for same years past in making investments abroad in holding companies resident in countries where there is a low Income Tax. For instance in the Graz Canton in Switzerland there is a low Income Tax, in the Grand Duchy of Lichtenstein there is no Income Tax at all, and in Luxemberg—

Major ELLIOT: Surely the hon. Member does not want to give assistance to these companies by advertising them?

Mr. PRICE: I think we are entitled to use this House with the object of showing that we know of the existence of these cases and that we hope something will be done. I do not doubt that the Treasury are anxious to find means of dealing with this situation, and if it is clear that we do know something about these cases it might help them. The reason why we have moved this Amendment is because we think the powers of the Treasury are too wide. We want to narrow them down and to make it quite definite that they shall deal with this matter. It is no argument to say that we are likely to have a flood of demands for conversion. I should like to know what percentage which goes abroad is liable to conversion. I imagine that it is not large. Moreover, the argument of the Financial Secretary that we should have to include the citizens of the Dominions will not hold water, because it is clear that the Clause refers to persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

Major ELLIOT: Who are not citizens

Mr. PRICE: That cannot possibly cover anyone who is a citizen of the Dominions.

Major ELLIOT: There is no such a thing as a citizen of the United Kingdom. It is not determinable in law.

Mr. PRICE: There must be something wrong in the drafting of this Clause. It should be far more explicit. Surely it is possible to draw up a Clause which will define a citizen of the United Kingdom, and perhaps that might be done on Report stage.

Sir G. HURST: I realise the cogency of the arguments of the Financial Secretary as to the undesirability of accepting the Amendment inasmuch as it would limit conversion to the 5 per cent. War Loan and would not apply to the Funding Loan, which is outside Part III and of which conversion may at some time be necessary. As a large amount of the 4 per cent. Funding Loan is held abroad by British nationals ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, it may be essential in the process of conversion to offer securities which hold out the same advantages to them. Having regard to the fact that Part III does not include the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, it may be necessary to have Clause 22 in general terms. At the same time, I am in thorough accord with the observations of hon. Members opposite. This is not a party question and the Amendment does draw attention to what is nothing less than a public scandal.
This grievance falls under two heads. There is the case of British nationals domiciled abroad for the sole purpose and intention of avoiding taxation and death duties, and it is high time the State proposed legislation to put an end to it. That may be outside the ambit of this Clause, but the holder of War Loan and 4 per cent. Funding Loan, ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, at the present time enjoys absolute exemption from taxation on these securities. This is a growing evil. From my own knowledge of trusteeship it is becoming more and more the practice of beneficiaries under a trusteeship to persuade their trustees to convert existing securities in the trust estate into 4 per cent. War Loan. There is no need for the beneficiaries to be domiciled abroad, to have their permanent home there; it is only necessary for them to be ordinarily resident abroad to be entirely exempt from taxation on the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and this process of converting trustee securities into this special security, which enjoys immunity from
ordinary taxation, is a growing tendency, and an unfair advantage is being taken of it by people who desire to avoid the common burden of citizenship to-day.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary, although no doubt it is necessary to frame Clause 22 on sufficiently comprehensive lines to apply to a. possible future conversion of the Funding Loan as well as the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan, that the wording of the Clause is too wide. It not only applies to future conversions of stock which was issued under the exigencies of the War but it also opens the gate to the Treasury at any time in the future issuing securities on conditions which our experiences since the War have clearly shown to be disadvantageous to the general mass of the nation. Although I am prepared to support the Government in voting against this specific Amendment, which is in error in not dealing with the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, I hope the Financial Secretary will consider the. advisability of not opening the door so wide as to enable the Treasury, in cases quite outside the ambit of ordinary conversion operations, to repeat what experience has shown to have been a mistake made during the War.

Mr. G. HARDIE: I want the Financial Secretary to look at paragraph (b) of Clause 22 and the last word, "future." We all realise the meaning of that word, but as it stands it can be read in more than one way. I think the Financial Secretary might take into consideration some word which would prevent the application of the Clause to fresh loans. What the word "future" does is to give a continuation to that which it is seeking to prevent. I think it would be possible to find words to confine what is herein contained to present contracts and not to any future loans. Would it not be possible to find a set of words that would govern the future in relation to fresh loans? If the present provision were made more water-tight, a great service would be done.

Mr. WISE: I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will respond to the appeals made to him from both sides of the Committee, that lie inquire whether justification was given for these general powers applicable to loans "under any Act," past, present or future. The powers are much wider than those that we were told, in the previous
speeches of the Financial Secretary, it was necessary to provide for, in connection with these conversion operations. If the Financial Secretary would agree to bring in words on the Report Stage to limit the operation of this part of the Clause, I am prepared not to press this Amendment. It is quite plain that the Clause, as it stands, gives into the hands of the Treasury matters of which the House of Commons ought not to lose control. Treasury officials have made mistakes in the past and will probably make mistakes in the future. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been longer in his office he will learn what the view is in the Departments, as to dependence upon the mistakes of Treasury officials.
We are not merely concerned with Treasury officials, but with what right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench may do in respect of future operations at any time. It is not Treasury officials who decide questions of policy, or who have responsibility for questions of policy, but Ministers. Ministers in this or some succeeding administration might completely evade the intentions of the taxes by providing a wide-open door for the removing abroad of capital by British subjects, in order to avoid taxation. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take the opportunity now held out to him that, between now and the Report stage, he should consider the point raised, and see if something can be done.

Major ELLIOT: This Clause does not seem to me to have special reference to this particular operation or to be the place in which it should be dealt with. The question which has been brought up in many parts of the Committee as to funds that are not subject to the sweep of the Treasury and thereby are evading a portion of the taxation, is, as I have frequently said, a source of grievance to the citizens of this country and of loss to the revenue. I do not believe that on this Clause it will be possible to draft any form of words which would fulfil the desires which have been expressed in the Committee. I could not agree to give the undertaking that I would look into this matter and bring up words between now and Report stage. I am very sorry that it is not possible for me to give an
undertaking, and it is much franker that I should tell hon. Members so. It is not a thing that can be done in the Finance Bill as at present drawn up. I gave examples of other nations and States which had taken power to deal with operations of this kind. Germany has strengthened her regulations, and so has the Government of Italy, as to nationals leaving the country, because of the greater burdens of taxation that are placed upon the subjects of the country by those who are trying to leave it. It could not possibly be done under this Clause. I appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been brought forward and the way it has been discussed by all sides of the Committee. It would be impossible for me to give the undertaking asked for. I ask hon. Members, now that they have raised the point and have been told that it would not be possible, to withdraw their Amendment.

Mr. WISE: Would not the hon. Gentleman definitely, and by words, limit this Clause to the operation of the conversion scheme of the 5 per cent. Loan Stock, or the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, to which reference has been made? That does not involve any broad consideration.

Major ELLIOT: No, it would not be possible to give the undertaking. In regard to other securities exchanged for 5 per cent. War Loan you might find yourself in considerable difficulties, if you attempted to define the Clause as is suggested. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury has been into the matter, and that it has not been possible for us to find any form of words applicable to the present situation and to meet the main point of objection. We must attract a man to invest his money in our funds. We have not been able to find any form of words such as hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have suggested, so that money invested in these funds should be subject to the full weight of taxation. If a man is residing abroad it is inevitable that he will have to be given a certain amount of advantage. I cannot hold out any hope of a new form of words.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 237.

Division No. 508.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christle, I. A.


Ainsworth. Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Albery, Irving James
Boyce, Lestle
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp' L. W.)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buchan, John
Colman, N. C. D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colville, Major D. J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Atholl, Duchess of
Burton, Colonel H. w.
Cooper, A. Duff


Atkinson, C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Caine, Hall-Derwent
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, E. T.
Cowan, D. M.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Carver, Major W. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Bainiel, Lord
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp


Berry, Sir George
Cecll, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Blindell, James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Ross, Ronald D.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rothschild, J. de


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Savery, S. S.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-S-M.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Scott James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Simms, Major-General J.


Ferquson, Sir John
Locker-Lempson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Skelton, A. N.


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smithers, Waldron


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerset, Thomas


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gillett, George M.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marjoribanks, Edward
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Glassey, A. E.
Markham, S. F.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Gower, Sir Robert
Millar, J. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Granville, E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thompson, Luke


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nall-Caln, A. R. N.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Train, J.


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hartington. Marquess of
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Haslam, Henry C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, Sir George
Wells, Sydney R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Withers, Sir John James


Horne, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert S
Pybus, Percy John
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Womersley, W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Hurd, Percy A.
Reld, David D. (County Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Remer, John R.



Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Captain Margesson and Viscount


Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Elmley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayes, John Henry


Arnott, John
Cove, William G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Ayles, Walter
Daggar, Georgt
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Barr, James.
Day, Harry
Harriotts, J.


Benson, G.
Dukrs, C.
Hicks, Ernest George


Bowen, J. W.
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunnico, H.
Hollins, A.


Bromfield. William
Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel


Brooke, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Horrabin, J. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Egan, W. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brawn, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Freeman, Peter
Jenkins, sir William


Burgess, F. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks W. R. Elland)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cameron, A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomes E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas




Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Kirkwood, D.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lawrence, Susan
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sorensen, R.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lawson, John James
Palin, John Henry
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Leach, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Leonard, W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Tillett, Ben


Longbottom, A. W.
Potts, John S.
Toole, Joseph


Longden, F.
Price. M. P.
Viant, S. P.


McElwee, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walker, J.


McEntee, V. L.
Raynes, W. R.
Watkins, F. C.


MacLaren, Andrew
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Romerll, H. G.
Wellock, Wilfred


McShane, John James
Salter. Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


March, S.
Sanders, w. s.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Marcus, M.
Sandham, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Marley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mathers, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Messer, Fred
Starr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Middleton, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wise, E. F.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shield, George William
Young, Sir R, (Lancaster, Newton)


Morley, Ralph
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shillaker, J. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 509.]
AYES.
[8.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Romeril, H. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alpass, J. H.
Hicks, Ernest George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Arnott, John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sanders, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hopkin, Daniel
Sandham, E.


Ayles, Walter
Horrabin, J. F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hudson James H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jenkins, Sir William
Scurr, John


Barr, James
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sherwood, G. H.


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shield, George William


Bowen, J. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kinley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Simmons, C. J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Burgess, F. G.
Leach, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Strauss, G. R.


Cameron, A. G.
Lonqden, F.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
McElwee, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Clarks, J. S.
McEntee, V. L.
Tillett, Ben


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Toole, Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Vaughan, David


Cove, William G.
Marcus, M.
Viant, S. P.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Marley, J.
Walker, J.


Daggar, George
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Dalton, Hugh
Messer, Fred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dukes, C.
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, Charles
Milner, Major J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Ede, James Chuter
Morley, Ralph
West, F. R.


Egan, W. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Freeman, Peter
Mort, D. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gossling, A. G.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Groves, Thomas E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Palin, John Henry
Winterton, G E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wise, E. F.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Haycock. A. W.
Potts, John S.



Hayes, John Henry
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Henderson, Arthur, junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
William Whiteley.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dudgeon, Major C, R.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Aske, Sir Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Edge, Sir William


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ferguson, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colman, N. C. D.
Foot, Isaac


Beaumont, M. W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Berry, Sir George
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Butterton, Sir Henry B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Ganzoni, Sir John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cowan, D. M.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Blinded. James
Cranborne, Viscount
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gillett, George M.


Boyce, Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bracken, B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Glassey, A. E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Gower, Sir Robert


Brown, Briq.- Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Granville, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Campbell. E. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Carver, Major W. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)




Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simms, Major-General J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Markham, S. F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Calthness)


Hanbury, C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Skelton, A. N.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Harris, Percy A.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Evres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Somerset, Thomas


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H,


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Thompson, Luke


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Thomson, Sir F.


Iveagh, Countess of
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John
Train, J.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. Georqe R.
Remer, John R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
White, H. G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Withers, Sir John James


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Womersley, W. J.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lymington, Viscount
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. O. (Tavlst'k)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Savery, S. S.



Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Scott, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macquisten, F. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Captain Euan Wallace and Viscount Elmley.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, after the word "in," to insert the words "nor citizens of." I move this Amendment formally.

Question put, "That those words be these inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 238.

CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to payment of interest on Government securities without deduction of Income Tax.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This Clause raises a point that is different from but cognate to the point that was raised on Clause 22, and though it is different, I think it can be attacked and defended on the same lines as those which were used on the respective sides of the Committee on the former Clause. Therefore, I do not propose to say very much with regard to it, but we shall vote against it. I gathered from something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier that he was somewhat doubtful about this Clause and that he had only come down in favour of it after a good deal of hesitation. Our hesitation is apparently a little stronger than his, and we have come down in our minds against this Clause. The existing provision in regard to the 5 per cent. War Loan has proved a very inconvenient one. It postpones the payment of tax, and at the same time, in a certain number of cases—the Chancellor said there were only a few—it enables evasion to take place. For both these reasons, we are opposed to the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will observe that this Clause is merely permissive. It does not say that the Treasury shall issue a conversion loan on those terms; it merely says that the Treasury may, if they think fit. There is not the least doubt that if we wish to
bring a conversion of 5 per cent. War Loan to a successful issue, we must endeavour to encourage foreign money to come into it, and there is not the least doubt that foreign money on a long-term loan is a great advantage.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I point out that that is quite beside the mark, as we have already, in Clause 22, said that no foreigner shall pay tax at all on either of these loans? We are discussing Clause 23, which, in consequence of what we decided on Clause 22, does not apply to foreigners at all.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: As the hon. Gentleman says, this is cognate to Clause 22, but it is germane to the whole question. If Income Tax is to be deducted at the source, it will discourage the foreigner from investing his money. The ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not a foreigner, and cannot know the foreigner's ideas on the subject. I know from my conversation with people who are foreigners, who have interests in this country, that the mere fact that Income Tax is to be deducted at the source will act as a serious deterrent and will prevent them investing their money. It is true that they will not be liable to Income Tax, but it means that it will be deducted from their dividends before they get them, and they will have to go through the cumbersome and laborious task of recovering it. That in itself will act as a deterrent and prevent foreigners investing their money in this proposed loan, and it will make it infinitely more difficult for an effectual conversion to be carried out.

Question put, "That the Clause stand port of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 126.

Division No. 510.]
AYES.
[8.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dukes. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Duncan, Charles
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Arnott, John
Dunnico, H.
Kinley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.


Ayles, Walter
Egan, W. H.
Lawrence, Susan


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Freeman, Peter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gossling, A. G.
Lawson, John James


Barr, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Leach, W.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Benson, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Longden, F.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
McEntee, V. L.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Haycock. A. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marley, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Messer, Fred


Cameron, A. G.
Herriotts, J.
Middleton, G.


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major J.


Clarke. J. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Morley, Ralph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cove, William G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mort, D. L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Muggeridge, H T.


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shield, George William
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummend
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shillaker, J. F.
West, F. R.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Potts, John S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sullivan, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, E. F.


Sanders, W. S.
Tillett, Ben
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Sandham, E.
Toole, Joseph



Sawyer, G. F.
Vaughan, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scrymgeour, E.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Scurr, John
Walker, J.
William Whiteley.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watkins, F. C.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iveagh, Countess of


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Aske, Sir Robert
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whithy)


Atkinson, C.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Balniel, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Beaumont, M. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Ferguson, Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Berry, sir George
Flelden, E. B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Bllndell, James
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Boyce, Leslie
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bracken, B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Markham, S. F.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Millar, J. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, George M.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Glassey, A. E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Campbell, E. T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Granville, E.
Nali-Cain, A. R. N.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Oliver, P. M. (Man. Blackley)


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Christie, J. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Peaks, Capt. Osbert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harris, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Pybus, Percy John


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tetnes)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henderson, Capt. R. B. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Remer, John R.


Cowan, D. M.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard-Sury, Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rosbotham D. S. T.


Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)




Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, H. G.


Savery, S. S.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Scott, James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Shepperson, sir Ernest Whittome
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Withers, Sir John James


Simms, Major-General J.
Thompson, Luke
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Thomson, Sir F.
Womersley, W. J.


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Skelton, A. N.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Train, J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Smith-Carington, Neville W
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Sir George Penny and Viscount Elmley.


Somerset, Thomas
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert



Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 511.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Foot, Isaac
O'Connor, T. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Lt. Col. sir William (Armagh)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Celonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Aske, Sir Robert
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley (Bewdley)
Gillett, George M.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Glassey, A. E.
Pybus, Percy John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Beaumont, M. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Granville, E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Birchall, Major sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Blindell, James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Boyce, Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bracken, B.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Ross, Ronald D.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harris, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, Capt, R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Scott, James


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simms, Major-General J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Witnington)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smithers, Waldron


Cockerill, Brig.-Generel Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerset, Thomas


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomas, Major L, B. (King's Norton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thompson, Luke


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomson, Sir F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt, H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Train, J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dixon, Captain Rt Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
White, H. G.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Edge, Sir William
Millar, J. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.



Ferguson, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Flelden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Captain Austin Hudson and Viscount Elmley.




NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Price, M. P.


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx, Enfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Ritson, J.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Romeril, H. G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hopkin, Daniel
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)


Batey, Joaeph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Sanders, W. S


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Sawyer, G. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shield, George William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shillaker, J. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cameron, A. G.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R.


Chariston, H. C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sullivan, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Longden, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
McElwee, A.
Tillett, Ben


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, V. L.
Vaughan, David


Cove, William G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McShane, John James
Walker, J.


Daggar, George
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watkins, F. C.


Dalton, Hugh
Marcus, M.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dukes, C.
Marley, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, Charles
Mathers, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Messer, Fred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Ede, James Chuter
Middleton, G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)


Egan, W. H.
Milner, Major j.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Freeman, Peter
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morley, Ralph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, Thomas E.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Palin, John Henry.



Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haycock, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

CLAUSE 21.—(Provisions as to permanent annual charge for the National Debt for 1931–32 and 1932–33.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the exact position with regard to Sub-section (2) of this Clause?

Major ELLIOT: The main purpose of this Clause is to provide for the modifications of the Sinking Fund including those which are necessary to deal with the Hoover Plan. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Hoover Plan we are to pay less money to the United States, and, correspondingly, we receive less money from Reparations and Allied Debts; and, unless this modification were made here, it would not be possible for us to "let up," if T may use that expression, that is to say, to modify the Debt charge in respect of our payments to the United States, and we should therefore be in the difficult position of receiving no money at all in the way of Reparations or Allied War Debts and still having to apply to Sinking Fund the amount saved on our payments to the United States. That, obviously, would be inadvisable, and therefore we have taken power to modify it in this Sub-section.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Surely, that is not a complete answer to my
question, which related to the whole of Sub-section (2)? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has only dealt with paragraph (a). I should like to know the position with regard to paragraph (b) also.

Major ELLIOT: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring more particularly to paragraph (a). We have also, as he knows, to deal with Victory Bonds and Funding Loan which are accepted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in payment of Death Duties. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his Budget Speech that he was only providing, for the statutory Sinking Fund, £32,500,00. A proportion of these Bonds are surrendered in payment of Death Duties, and these are not going to be brought by the Sinking Fund, but will be reborrowed. It is in respect of that operation that this paragraph applies.

Clauses 24 (Amendment to Schedule III of 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 32), and 25 (Construction, short title and repeal), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask, Sir, whether you propose to call upon me to move the new Clause—[Reduction of club duty]—standing in my name.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Clause standing in his name is out of order. There is no Ways and Means Resolution on which the Clause could be founded.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Would it be possible to have additional taxation without that being stated in the Preamble to this Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No additional taxation can be levied which is not already covered by this Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Tobacco.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 120.

Division No. 512.]
AYES.
[9.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Broadbent, Colonel J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Albery, Irving James
Bellairs, Commander Carryon
Buchan, John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Berry, Sir George
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent


Aske, Sir Robert
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, E. T.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bilndell, James
Carver, Major W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boothby, R. J. G.
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Atkinson, C.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Boyce, Leslie
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, B.
Cazalet, Captain victor A.


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbatton)
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pybus, Percy John


Clydesdale, Marquees of
Harris, Percy A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Haslam, Henry C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major William Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Colman, N. C. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.


Colville, Major O. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir;G. R. J.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecolesall)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Ronald D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Savory, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashtord)
Scott, James


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Law, sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Edge, Sir William
Locker-Lampson, com. O.(Handsw'th)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Elmley, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ferguson, Sir John
Macpheraon, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thompson, Luke


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Sir F.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Foot, Isaac
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Markham, S. F.
Train, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Millar, J. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, Ward law-, J. S.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. sir A. Lambert


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warrender, Sir Victor


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gillett, George M.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
white, H. G.


Glassey, A. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Granville, E.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W, P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middleshro'W.)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Penny, Sir Georqe



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Captain Austin Hudson and Major McKenzie Wood.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dukes, C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Duncan, Charles


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.


Arnott, John
Burgess, F. G.
Ede, James Chuter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Egan, W. H.


Ayles, Walter
Cameron, A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (Welt Ham, Upton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Charleton, H. C.
Gossling, A. G.


Barr, James
Clarke, J. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Batey, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benson, G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Groves, Thomas E.


Bowen, J. W.
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Daggar, George
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)




Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, Major J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hicks, Ernest George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sullivan, J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jenkins, Sir William
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Vaughan, David


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Watkins, F. C.


Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. p.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richardson, R. (Houghtonle-Spring)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, William (Slaydon)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longden, F.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McElwee, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McEntee, V. L.
Sandham, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marcus, M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Marley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Mathers, George
Shield, George William



Messer, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Middleton, G.
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Rate of Entertainments Duty.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 16, line 24, column 1, at the beginning, to insert the words "Exceeds 2d. and."
This Amendment deals with the general alterations which we are making in the scale of the Entertainments Duty, and is by way of concession to the case which has been presented in the Debate. There are two points which have been stressed, one on social grounds and the other on economic grounds. One is that a sum of 7½d. would be extremely awkward for the proprietors of cinemas to handle, because it would be very difficult in the rush hours to give change for this sum. Of course, it might have been dealt with by a steepening up and making it 2d., and I thought it was rather a dangerous argument to bring forward, especially in face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, However, he has on this occasion decided to temper justice with mercy and to lower it downwards instead of upwards. I think that will deal with a point which cinema proprietors, in particular, and certain other entertainments have brought forward.
The other point was that it would be a hardship for the citizens, and especially for the more junior citizens, if the tax were charged on the price of admission as low as a penny. The penny rush was brought forward with great force by the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) and others, as a thing which should not be hampered by the State.
The Chancellor, whose sympathy with the desire, if possible, to exempt the very lowest of these grades from tax has been shown so plainly in the past, has decided that the tax can stand the remission for the two lower grades of 1d. and 2d., so that there will be no State charge whatever on those two lower grades. This will be an advantage also to certain classes of men connected with travelling shows. It has been represented that these shows are small, that the tax of a halfpenny was an unreasonably large one to place upon them, and that they represented an ancient and honourable tradition which it would be a great pity to break up.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what effect this will have upon the Gold Standard?

Major ELLIOT: That only means I shall be very unwilling to give way to the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) another time, and that would be a great pity. The exemption of the lower ranges is a reasonable concession which can be defended from many points of view. It is also a concession which will make it administratively easier to work the tax, in that the inspection and calculation necessary for dealing with these small shows with low admission prices would present a greater problem than the tax yield would probably warrant. Accordingly, I hope we shall find that the concessions which the Chancellor is making
—and which I am discussing together because I understand it is the desire of the Committee to treat the whole subject of the range of Entertainments Duty, as amended by this and a subsequent Amendment, in one—will be acceptable to the Committee. I understand from the Opposition that they do not intend to divide, save, possibly, on the general Schedule of the new duty as a whole. I hope it will be possible for the Committee to accept the scale as now amended and let us pass on to further business.

Mr. JAMES WELSH: (Paisley)
I think the Committee will have listened with interest to tire statement made by the Financial Secretary, and I should like, on behalf of those interested in the matter, not only in connection with cinemas, but all places of entertainment and sport, to express our indebtedness to him for having met us in this matter. We are gratified with the concession, because in my opinion the penny which is now proposed carries quite a proportion of burden of the tax as compared with other grades. I think it can be justified on many grounds. At any rate we are indebted to the Chancellor for giving way and to the Financial Secretary for his help in the matter.
With regard to the question of the duty up to 2d., I am very sorry the Chancellor has not seen his way to go just a little further and give way up to 3d. By abolishing the duty on one penny and on twopence, he has given us two-thirds of what we want, but in effect it hardly works out like that. The yield from one penny and twopence is very small indeed, and I had hoped, that in view of the very moderate suggestion put forward the Chancellor would see his way to go up to threepence. This can be discussed from the point of view of the entertainment industry and also from the public point of view. As far as the entertainment industry is concerned, in the case of one penny and twopence, in the conditions with regard to talkies and other things, it means practically no assistance to them at all. On the other hand, if the Chancellor had seen his way to include the threepenny tax, he would have included many of the junior football clubs to which reference has been made, and as far as cinemas are concerned it would have had the effect of leaving the
matinée performances, which are to a large extent attended by the unemployed, free of tax. As the proposal we now have is for a penny tax on admissions of threepence, that means 33⅓ per cent. tax on that particular price, which seems to me rather heavier than can be justified.
I can quite understand that the Chancellor expects to get £2,500,000 from this alteration, and I realise the difficulties of his advisers with regard to the yield of this tax, because the only real data they have is the yield of the tax when conditions in the industry were altogether different. From my own personal knowledge and with the advice of those who know a great deal about this matter, I can assure him that the yield will be rather greater than he anticipates, and he could have given way on this threepence without reducing the amount available for his Budget. I should like to appeal to the Chancellor that on Report stage to-morrow he should consider the question of going to threepence. From the point of view of the cinema proprietors it would help them, because with the smaller places, which are working in areas where economic conditions are very bad, in some cases the proprietors are carrying on under very grave difficulties. These difficulties would be accentuated by the tax on fourpence, fivepence and sixpence now being added, and if it had been possible to meet us in regard to threepence, it would have made things a little easier for those in the industry.
The Chancellor knows that the recent development in entertainment has been in the direction of building up larger places. The places which were already contributing to the tax were the smaller places, and the only way they could possibly continue was by reducing prices and attracting patrons in that way. Unfortunately, by these additions to the tax the position has been made worse and more difficult, and I shall not be very much surprised if as the result of these increased taxes on the smaller prices, quite a number of places have to go out of existence altogether. I do not think the Chancellor will gain as far as revenue is concerned.
There is only one other point I want to deal with. I have not made any suggestion as to how more money could be got from the dearer seats—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out that if a general discussion is allowed to take place on this Amendment, the other Amendments cannot be discussed at length. On that understanding I will allow a general discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. WELSH: With regard to high-class concerts, and more particularly orchestral concerts, the position is one of very great difficulty. I speak from personal knowledge on an orchestral committee, and I know that three or four of the largest orchestras give employment to musicians who would otherwise probably not be employed. These orchestras afford an opportunity for the training of musicians. The point I wish to emphasise is that under the Schedule that we are discussing there is a considerable increase in the tax which bears very hardly in the case of concerts of this kind. These various musical organisations have issued a prospectus and they point out that what is now proposed means a 100 per cent. increase of the tax. I hope that in cases where the tickets are sold before the beginning of the session the new rate of tax will not be insisted upon, and that those tickets will be issued on the basis of lie present rate of taxation. I appeal to the Chancellor to give special consideration with regard to the 3d. admission and the placing of 1d. on the 6d.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I rise to answer two specific points which have been put to me by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Welsh) who is so well informed on this subject. The charge of 3d. admission is a very popular price, and a very large number of tickets are sold at that price. Therefore, I cannot share the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Paisley that if we were to accept his suggestion it would not involve any considerable loss of revenue. I agree that in view of the altered circumstances of the operation of the tax it is very difficult to estimate what the yield of the tax will be from the lower priced seats. I am told that it is very likely that if we were to give a remission in the case of the 3d. seats it would involve a very considerable loss of revenue. I confess that I have no enthusiasm in recommending this additional tax. My views on this subject are very well known and have often been expressed.
It must not be forgotten that when I reduced the Entertainments Duty on a former occasion I sacrificed £4,000,000 revenue by remission of taxation on the low priced seats. I should have been very pleased if I could possibly have done something more than I am now doing in this direction. With regard to what the hon. Member for Paisley said, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that I shall be able to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. I have given a good deal of personal attention to this subject, and I should have been very glad if I could have made any further concessions. I would like to say, with regard to the organisations to which the hon. Member for Paisley has referred, that I have much sympathy with musicians in these hard times, and I am anxious not to do anything that would increase their hardships.

Mr. ALPASS: I have heard with great disappointment the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I regret his decision that he cannot make any further concessions in regard to the low priced seats. These proposals ask for a penny tax on the 3d. seats and that is going to fall very heavily upon the children of the poor. In my Division there are several cinemas which cater almost exclusively for this class of people, and I know, from my contact with the families, that these low-priced seats are the only kind of entertainment that the children of the poor people can afford to attend. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will agree that in these times, when wages are low and unemployment is so rife, it is going to make it practically impossible—

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is all wrong.

Mr. ALPASS: The right hon. Gentleman is keeping the tax upon the low-priced seats—

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, not on the 2d. seats.

Mr. ALPASS: I am supporting the plea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) that the exemption from tax should be extended to 6d. seats—

Mr. SNOWDEN: He did not say that.

Mr. ALPASS: He asked for some further concession to which the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to agree. This is an additional tax upon the entertainment of the poor, of whom I represent a very large number. I was talking to an unemployed man's wife in my Division the other day, and she assured me that they were not able to go to an entertainment once in six months, because of their poverty. It is stretching the matter too far to ask these people to pay an additional tax on the very small bit of entertainment which in present circumstances they are able to afford.

Mr. MESSER: I desire to express my appreciation of the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I do not say that because I like this tax at all, and I am not speaking on behalf of the cinema industry or the entertainment industry, but on behalf of what I believe to be the most important section of the community, namely, the children. I have more faith in the children than I have in the present

generation, and, so far as my experience goes—and it has been very largely among children—I am certain that the concession will enable a large number of children to get entertainment which otherwise they would not be able to get. There are entertainments which are organised specially for children—not necessarily cinema entertainments, but, in some instances, a special type of variety entertainment—and which only children are allowed to attend. The prices of admission to entertainments of this type will be increased in consequence of the tax, and I am very glad that this remission has been made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 25, column 1, leave out "5d.," and insert, instead thereof "6d."

In line 26, column 1, leave out "5d.," and insert instead thereof "6d."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 130.

Division No. 513.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foot, Isaac


Albery, Irving James
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Forestier-Walker, Sir L


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colman, N. C. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colville, Major D. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atholl, Duchess of
Courtauld, Major J. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Atkinson, C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gillett, George M,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Glassey, A. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Cuniltte-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Granville, E.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dairymple-White, Lt-Col. Sir Godfrey
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Birchall, Major sir John Dearman
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Blindell, James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Gritten, W, G. Howard


Boyce, Leslie
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Buchan, John
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duckworth. G. A. V.
Hanbury, C.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Harris, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hartington, Marquess of


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Edge, Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Elmley, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hertnessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Christie, J. A.
Ferguson. Sir John
Hurd, Percy A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
O'Connor, T. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Iveagh, Countess of
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Jones, Sir G.W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerset, Thomas


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Law, sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Train, J.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Reid, David D, (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Remer, John R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Long, Major Hon. Erie
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wells, Sydney R.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
White, H. G.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Macquisten, F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Withers, Sir John James


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Markham, S. F.
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Scott, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Millar, J. D.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wright, Brig. Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Simms, Major-General J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)



Muirhead, A. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Skelton, A. N.
Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Palmer, E. T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Herriotts, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ammon, Charles George
Hicks, Ernest George
Potts, John S.


Arnott, John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hoffman, P. C.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ayles, Walter
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jenkins, Sir William
Romerll, H. G.


Barr, James
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Bowen, J. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sandham, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kinley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brooke, w.
Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawson, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Burgess, F. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cameron, A. G.
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Clarke, J. S.
MacLaren, Andrew
Strauss, G. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sullivan, J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McShane, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Toole, Joseph


Daggar, George
Marcus, M.
Vaughan, David


Dalton, Hugh
Marley, J.
Viant, S. P.


Dukes, C.
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Duncan, Charles
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Messer, Fred
Wellock, Wilfred


Ede, James Chuter
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Egan, W. H.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Freeman, Peter
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Raiph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mort, D. L.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, Thomas E.
Noel Baker, p. J.



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth. C.)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)



Haycock, A. W.
Palin, John Henry

Third Schedule (Provisions for giving effect to the change in the standard rate in income Tax for the year 1931–32) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendment of enactments relating to reliefs from Income Tax.)

Mr. BENSON: I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 5 to 21.
It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if the various Amendments on this Schedule are discussed together. The attack that we have made upon the proposed alteration of the various allowances has not been answered. Little or no attempt has been made, either by the Financial Secretary or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to answer the charges that we have brought against the changes or the arguments that we have adduced. When the Financial Secretary came to reply in the Debate on the Budget Resolution, he gave an exhibition of dodging and sidestepping which would have done credit to a professional boxer. It was the finest exhibition of shadow boxing that I have seen in the House. When I moved the rejection of the Budget Resolution and the rejection of Clause 8, the one thing tried to make clear was that I was not proposing to attack the graduation upon a basis of percentages. If you deal with Income Tax reductions on a basis of percentages you can prove anything. On each occasion I very carefully avoided a single percentage. I compared like with like, whether it was a case of similar burdens or similar ranges of income. The Financial Secretary sheered off on to the subject of percentages and ridiculed the idea that, because a man at one range of income had a 300 per cent. increase and another a 10 per cent. increase, there was a grievance. No one claims that a large percentage on one range is a grievance as compared with a similar percentage on another range. Our case is that the actual burdens are utterly different, and it does not rest on a fantastic comparison of percentages. I took a case of equal burden. I took a married man with three children at £800 a year. His burden has been increased by £36. I compared that, not with a man with £20,000 or £30,000 but with a single man who had an increase of burden of £36, and that was a man with £1,600 a year,
exactly double the income but bearing a similar burden.
The charge against this alteration of allowances is that quite unjustifiably and unwarrantably it increases the burden on the married man, not relatively but actually, more than it increases the burden on the single man. A married, man with three children starts paying tax at the rate of £400 a year. He pays £5. A single man with a. similar income pays £33. There is there a difference of £28 in the tax payment, but I claim that the mere difference of £28 in the tax payment between a single man and a married man with three children is nothing like sufficient differentiation. If we take the largest differentiation under the old Schedule, it was £56, no matter what the range of income. The largest differentiation in the May Budget between a single man and a married man with three children was £56. That maximum differentiation has now been reduced to £45. The married man with three children has been penalised to the extent of £11 as compared with a single man with the same income. That is not a question of percentages. It is not a question of comparing a man with £200 or £300 a. year and the burden he bears with that of a man with £15,000 or £20,000. It is a similar range of income. It is not a percentage burden. but a definite actual burden on the married man with three children of £11 more than in the case of a single man, and that is utterly and completely unjustifiable. Last night, in reply to the Debate on the Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
The sole reason why there is a plausible case for alleging that there is unfair discrimination against the married man as compared with the single man is because the married man hitherto has been most generously treated in comparison with the single man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1931; col. 464, Vol. 257.]
That is not true. Throughout the scale the married man with a family has not been generously treated as compared with the single man. I pointed out that the single man with no burdens, with a far smaller establishment to maintain, with far fewer responsibilities, is at a disadvantage upon the old scale of £56 and on the present scale of £45. Does the Financial Secretary suggest that a reduction in tax of £45 is equivalent compensation for the cost of maintaining
a wife and three children and all that that entails? The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night suggested that we were trying to rob him of some revenue. On the contrary, we were not complaining, and as far as I know no one on this side of the Committee has complained about the lowering of the level at which Income Tax is to be paid. We are complaining of the unfair graduations. We maintain that the single man, particularly in the middle and higher ranges of income, can in this present crisis contribute more to the State than he is doing or is being asked to contribute. He should be asked to shoulder a burden which bears more relationship in sacrifice to the burden which a married man with a family is bearing.
It is more revenue out of the Income Tax we want and not less. The revenue received from the single man who can well afford to pay more than he is being asked to pay at the moment could be used to modify other parts of the Income Tax, or to get rid of indirect taxation, such as has been placed upon tobacco and entertainments, or, better still, could be used to balance the Budget without the necessity of cutting down the unemployed man by 10 per cent. We want a reasonable adjustment of burdens to the backs that bear them. If a married man, at any range of income you like, having to maintain a wife and three children, can pay £x, a single man with a similar income can pay far more than £x plus £45 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking him to bear. That is our case against the Schedule, and it has not been met. There has been no attempt to meet it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and particularly the Financial Secretary, have slid off by ridiculing supposed percentages. They have not attempted to answer the definite charge that in the present Finance Bill and under this particular Schedule a single man is not asked to bear anything like the burden he could bear, and that if he did bear it various other things which the Government propose would not be done.

Mr. ARNOTT: I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, because, although he did not attempt to reply to a single argument
advanced either by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), he thought it worth while to attack us about our ignorance. I will quote the exact words he used. I interjected that in regard to allowances he gave the biggest benefit to the highest incomes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
We give the benefit just where it is needed, and, if the hon. Member, who has shown his ignorance of this question on many occasions in the course of this Debate, will acquaint himself with the facts he will find that when we get to a certain point in incomes—
I want hon. Members to mark this—
the effect of all allowances disappears."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1931; col. 466, Vol. 257.]
I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of the intricacies of finance and of Budgets, but I can do simple addition and subtraction, and I can read the figures which the officials of the Treasury supply. I am always willing to learn, but it is as well to be quite certain that the people who give you information give you accurate information. The Chancellor said last night that on higher incomes the difference between earned income and unearned income disappears, and he also told us that the difference between the position of a married man with a family and a single man disappeared. Neither of these statements is true, as his own White Paper will show. Surely, an income of £100,000 is a large income. The man with an income of £100,000 which is claimed to be earned pays £75 a year less because of the fact that his income is earned. These figures are in the White Paper issued by the Treasury. A married man with three children, with an income of £100,000, receives £45 in allowances, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement without a word of truth and without a shred of foundation that these allowances disappear in regard to the higher incomes, he must have thought we were more ignorant than we really are.
The facts are that a man with an income of £100,000 gets £75 allowance, and a man with £25,000 gets £75 allowance, right down to £2,000—I believe right down even to £1,500. There is the same allowance on all the higher incomes from Super-tax level upwards. Not only so,
but the allowances which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said did not exist have actually been increased by him in this Budget. In the last Budget the allowance made to a man with an income of £100,000 if it was earned—I do not know whether anyone can earn that sum or not; it is another question upon which I am ignorant—was £56, and it has been increased. On the other hand, the allowances paid to these wealthy people in respect of families has been diminished. To-day he allows them £45 as against £58 in April, which means that they are, roughly speaking, about £10 worse off. I think I have demonstrated beyond peradventure that the men of high income do receive allowances. The document presented to the House by the Financial Secretary, although misleading in seine respects, is accurate in its figures. I cannot say the same of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this regard. A married man with £100,000 receives in his allowance in respect to earned income and in his allowance in respect to his wife and children a total sum of £120. That is much more than a man with an income of £400 gets.
I will take the case of a single man. To the single man with an income of £150, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in April, allowed £25 in respect of earned income and a personal allowance of £135, making a total allowance of £165. Therefore, he was free of tax. Under the present proposals, one-fifth is deducted for earned income, amounting to £30, and £100 is granted as personal allowance, making a total of £130. Previously that man was entirely clear of Income Tax, but now he has to pay on £20. The man with an income of £300 had. an allowance in respect of earned income of £50 and a personal allowance of £135, amounting to £185, which left him with a taxable income of £115. Under the present proposals, that man gets an allowance of £60 in respect of earned income and a personal allowance of £100, making £160, or a reduction of £25 in allowance. Therefore, he has to pay tax upon an additional £25. The single man with an income of £150 now pays tax on £20 more than before, the man with an. income of £200 pays on £29 more than before, the man with
£300 pays on £25 more, and the man with £1,500 pays on £15 less.
The man with an income of £1,500 could deduct from his earned income, last April, £250, and he had a personal allowance of £135, making a total allowance of £385, which left him with £1,115 of taxable income. To-day, in order to share the sacrifice imposed upon other people, he gets an allowance of £300 in respect of earned income, and a personal allowance of £100, making a total of £1,100 taxable income, or £15 less of taxable income than before. Therefore, the single man with £1,500 income pays tax on £15 less, while the man with £200 income pays on £29 more than he did before. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will not talk about percentages when dealing with the £1,500 a year man. Our criticism has never been met and cannot be met, because the facts are against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you have a percentage reduction upon incomes up to £1,500 with a maximum allowance of £300 for earned income, it follows that £300 is one-fifth of £1,500. It does not require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that calculation. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we do not consider the allowances he cannot have listened to a single word which we have uttered. It is the allowance on the higher earned incomes combined with a flat rate on the lower personal and dependants' incomes which is responsible for all the anomalies to which we have called attention. I think I have proved my case, and that it does not always do to accept the arithmetic of the Front Bench.

Major ELLIOT: It seems to me to be necessary to say the same things again and again, therefore, I shall have to say it again. I do not wish to say anything harsh in regard to what the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Arnott) has said and, therefore, I will not use the winged and barbed words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used. I will call his attention to the figures and leave it at that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when we got to a certain point in incomes the effect of all allowances disappears.

Mr. ARNOTT: They do not disappear. The £75 does not disappear.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member went into the grave question of the allowances of the man with £100,000 a year. It seems to bear very keenly upon him. He pointed out that a married man with £100,000 a year gets an allowance of £120. Evidently he thought that this vitiated the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not arguing with the hon. Member for South-West Hull, he was telling him that at these ranges the effect of the allowances disappeared. A married man with £100,000 a year pays £61,490 in taxation; therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in saying that on a tax amounting to £61,490 the effect of an allowance of £120 disappears, was surely stating what is simple and obvious to everyone.

Mr. ARNOTT: That will not do.

Major ELLIOT: I do not want to stress the point with the hon. Member.

Mr. ARNOTT: If the Financial Secretary will admit that £75 is less than £15 there may he some point in his argument.

Major ELLIOT: I am perfectly willing to admit that £75 is more than £15 if the hon. Member will also admit that the effect of £120 on a sum of £61,490 is negligible. If the hon. Member is willing to give me £61,490 I will not quarrel with him if it is £120 short. Let me come to the case advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). He said that we should not go into a discussion of percentages but compare the actual weight of the taxation which is being called for from people of various ranges of income. Let me compare one or two cases. Take the case of a married man who the hon. Member says is being asked to carry a disproportionate amount of taxation as compared with a single man. He said: "Let us compare like with like." I will take like with like and compare the case of a single person with that of a married man with three children both enjoying exactly similar incomes.
A married man with three children and an income of £135 pays nothing; a single man pays £1. It is clear that a married man with that income is not being asked to contribute anything at all. Take the next range of income, that of £200 a year.
There again, the married man with three children is not asked to contribute anything, while the single man is asked to pay £7 10s. Surely that shows that quite a reasonable burden is being laid upon the single man. Take the next range of income, £300 a year. There again, the married man with three children is not asked to pay anything, while the single man is asked to pay £17 10s. These are not percentages, but gross sums which the taxgatherer takes from his income. So far, the married man with three children escapes without one penny of taxation whatever. Take the next range of income, £400 per year. The married man with three children pays £5, but the single man pays £33 2s. 6d., or six times as much. I think these figures will go far to disprove the contentions of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). We come to the income of £500 a year, on which the married man with three children pays £15 and the single man pays £53 2s. 6d. All these figures destroy the case which is being advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mr. BENSON: In a nutshell my case is whether, on the maximum differentiation, there is a difference of £45 payable by the single man more than is paid by the married man with three children. That differentiation is not anything like enough. The single man who pays only £45 more tax than the married man with three children, could pay vastly more.

Major ELLIOT: In the £400 range, which I have quoted, the single man is paying £33 2s. 6d. and the married man is paying £5. For the hon. Member for Chesterfield to say that that is not a steep enough gradation, and that that should be enormously increased, shows a class or trade union prejudice by the married man of family against the single class. I do not wish to take it any further. If he contends as a married man that £5 is an unreasonably large sum to pay, he will have a great deal of difficulty in convincing a single man, and still more a single woman, that a tax of £33 2s. 6d. for the same income is not a considerable addition, despite the fact that the married man has a great deal more responsibility than the single person. I do not wish to go further
into the matter. These figures have been examined and re-examined, and canvassed and re-canvassed.

Mr. BOWEN: Not by married people.

Major ELLIOT: These are the figures which have been drawn up and supplied to married people as well as to single people, and they show that, compared with the single person, the married person in the low range of income is let off with only a fraction of the tax of the single man, that, as compared with previous Budgets, or say with the Budget of the 1924 Administration, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was supported in the House by his then party, no increase of burden in many cases has been laid upon the married person. They cannot escape from the logic of the facts. There is no doubt that they can show, by per-

centage of increase and by re-arrangements of the figures, that the burden is heavier and that the increase is steeper in this last year on the married person, than it is on the others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has truly said that the married man had previously very wide and increased allowances given him. These burdens are heavier than many of us would like to see, and will be felt heavily by people in all ranges. Yet they are not an unreasonable demand to make from the citizens. Many countries would be glad to escape from the crises that confront them at the cost of such sacrifices as we are asking from the citizens of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 137.

Division No, 514.]
AYES.
[10.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Colfox, Major William Philip
Granville, E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colville, Major D. J.
Granted, Edward C. (City of London)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cooper, A. Duff
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gritten, W, G. Howard


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crichton Stuart, Lord C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hanbury, C.


Balniel, Lord
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Harris, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bellairs, Commander Cartyon
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Haslam, Henry C.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blindell, James
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dixey, A. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Boyce, Leslie
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bracken, B.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Briscoe, Richard George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Buchan, John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wetton-s-M.)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Fielden, E. B.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Campbell, E. T.
Foot, Isaac
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Edgbaston)
Gillett, George M.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.


Christie. J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Glassey, A. E.
Locker-Lampson, Com, O.(Handsw'th)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G, C.
Longs, Major Hon. Eric


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerset, Thomas


Lymington, Viscount
Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Homer, John R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Sir F.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ross, Ronald D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Train, J.


Millar, J. D.
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Morrison, W. S. (Gios., Cirencester)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Muirhead, A. J.
Savery, S. S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Scott, James
White, H. G.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Simms, Major-General J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Connor, T. J.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Womersley, W. J.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Penny, Sir George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Palin, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Palmer, E. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Haycock, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Arnott, John
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Herriotts, J.
Price, M. P.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hoffman, P. C.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barr, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Horrabin, J. F.
Ritson, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Romeril, H. G.


Benson, G.
Isaacs, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowen, J. W.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Sandham, E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kirkwood, D.
Shield, George William


Brown, Rt. Hen. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawrence, Susan
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shillaker, J. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawson, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clarke, J. S.
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Daggar, George
McShane, John James
Strauss, G. R.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Mansfield, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Marcus, M.
Vaughan, David


Day, Harry
Marley, J.
Viant, S. P.


Dukes, C.
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Duncan, Charles
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Messer, Fred
Wellock, Wilfred


Ede, James Chuter
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Egan, W. H.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Freeman, Peter
Morley, Ralph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Gould, F.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Winterton. G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Young, sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Srenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)



Groves, Thomas E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 136.

Division No. 515.]
AYES.
[10.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Edmondson, Maj or A. J.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt Hon. James I.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Aske, Sir Robert
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Atholl, Duches of
Fielden, E. B.
Markham, S. F.


Atkinson, C.
Foot, Isaac
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F, Boyd


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I.of Thanet)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Millar, J. D.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, sir Henry B.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muirhead, A. J.


Blindell, James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gillett, George M,
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Glassey, A. E,
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Boyce, Leslie
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bracken, B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Granville, E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Owen, Major G, (Carnarvon)


Buchan, John
Greene, W, P. Crawford
Penny, Sir George


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Caine, Hall, Derwent
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsbotham, H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Carver, Major W. H.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harris, Percy A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tt'y)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd,Henley)
Roberts, sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Ronald D.


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Savery, S. S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Scott, James


Colville, Major D. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Llewellyn, F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Culverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Or. Vernon
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Somerset, Thomas


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lymington, Viscount
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Train, J.
White, H. G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Womersley, W. J.
Victor Warrender.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, Thomas E.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Half, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Palin, John Henry.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Palmer, E. T.


Arnott, John
Haycock, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Herriotts, J.
Price. M. P.


Barr, James
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hopkin, Daniel
Ritson, J


Benson, G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles w.
Isaacs, George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jenkins, Sir William
Sanders, W. S.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sawyer, G. F.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shield, George William


Brown, Rt. Han. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kinley, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Shillaker, J. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Simmons, C. J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longden, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McElwee, A.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Daggar, George
McEntee, V. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sullivan, J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McShane, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Vaughan, David


Day, Harry
Mansfield, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dukes, C.
Marcus, M.
Watkins, F. C.


Duncan, Charles
Marley, J,
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mathers, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Ede, James Chuter
Maxton, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Messer, Fred
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Egan, W. H.
Middleton, G.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Freeman, Peter
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Ralph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gould, F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Winterton,G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mort, D. L.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Muggeridge, H. T.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Fifth Schedule (Enactments repealed), agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [29th SEPTEMBER].

Resolutions reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

CLASS V.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,700,000, be granted to His
Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea (including expenditure additional to that authorised under Section 2 (1) of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909); and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

CLASS VI

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Advances to the Road Fund."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. LAWSON: The House will remember that when we debated these Supplementary Estimates in Committee nearly the whole time was taken up in discussing the Ministry of Labour Estimate, and the discussion on the Road Fund was curtailed. We registered our strong opposition against this Supplementary Estimate, and if there were time, we would continue to express ourselves in that sense, but we desire to use the time at our disposal to-night for the Road Fund, so that we shall formally express our opposition by dividing against this Estimate.

Mr. SIMMONS: Towards the end of the previous discussion, I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary, his answer to which has caused much perturbation among ex-service men and especially among those organised in the various branches of the British Legion. It referred to the question of pensions being taken into consideration by the public assistance committees in assessing the needs of those men and to the treatment that badly disabled ex-service men had previously been receiving at the hands of the Employment Exchanges. With regard to pensions, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the public assistance committees would deal with these according to their practice hitherto. That means that there will be no uniformity of treatment of ex-service men by the committees. The pensions were, after all, given for disabilities incurred during war service, and were in the nature of something entirely separate from the ordinary family income. After all, the pensioner needs extra nourishment, and, if he has an artificial limb, there is extra wear and tear on clothes. The disabled man's ability to work is affected and his net earnings are very much less than those of his fellow workman who is sound in limb and health, which makes it more difficult for him. For these reasons pensions are necessary. The ex-service man was told during the War that his pension would
not be taken into account in fixing wages, and that it should not be taken into account in fixing maintenance. Maintenance is something which affects the whole family, and yet the family is to be penalised in this way. I make a special appeal to the Minister on this question. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has powers to deal with these matters, and even if he says that he cannot deal with them a word from one of his colleagues would make it possible for a circular to be sent round to the public assistance committees which will have to deal with ex-service men's pensions. I would remind hon. Members that we fought the Huns because we were told that they had torn up a scrap of paper, and now the Government propose to tear up a. scrap of paper in regard to a matter which affects the livelihood of the men who fought for this country during the War.
11.0 p.m.
I will now turn to the case of the badly disabled ex-service men who cannot possibly get employment because of their special disability. In reply to a question I was told that no distinction was going to be made in regard to any class of the community in connection with these reductions. It is about 14 years since these men made their great sacrifice, and now they are asked to make another sacrifice. The limbless man is in a different position from other ex-service men. The man who has lost an arm is not wanted in ordinary industries. For such men light jobs are very few and far between. I have known eases of men with artificial limbs walking about searching for a job to such an extent that congealed blood has been found on the rim of the bucket of the artificial limb. In some cases these poor men have become incapacitated searching for work, and because of that they are told they are not eligible for benefit. I want to make a strong and urgent appeal on behalf of many ex-service men whom I know personally, and with whom I come into contact in my own city and in various parts of the country. In the great national crisis in 1914, the young manhood of this country responded to the appeal to their manhood, their chivalry and their patriotism. During that crisis the young manhood of this country were weighed in the balance, and were not
found wanting. Many people may have thought that they were mistaken, and they themselves may have thought that they were mistaken, but during that time of crisis the young manhood of this country responded to the call of the country in her hour of need. Will the country let down these young men in their hour of need? You have your crisis in the Government and in the nation, but in the homes of these men, who have suffered untold hells and agonies because of what they did for their country, there is suffering and poverty—[Interruption.] The Government can ease their burdens; it can make their sacrifice not quite so hard as it otherwise would be; and I appeal to the Government to see if, in the Orders-in-Council which they are going to make, they can make some provision for the protection of these men who protected them in the hour of need. If they do not, all I can say is that, as we fought the Germans in 1914, so we will fight the Huns at home in this battle

that is in front of us. Instead of the bomb we will use the ballot; instead of the bayonet we will use our eloquence on the platforms of this country; instead of slogans about killing Huns, we will have slogans: about making for our fellows who suffered in the last War, and for their children who will follow them, a better England than you have made for them.

Mr. MCSHANE: Is not there going to be any reply?

Mr. SIMMONS: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled, considering the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that we had on the Committee stage, to some reply now? This is a very important question. These men for whom I am pleading have made great sacrifices.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 127.

Division No. 516.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Albery, Irving James
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Granville, E.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l.w.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colville, Major D. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hanbury, C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balniel, Lord
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harris, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davidson, Rt. Hon, J. (Hertford)
Haslam, Henry C.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P,


Blindell, James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Boyce, Leslie
Dixey, A. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer


Bracken, B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hurd, Percy A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hutchison, Maj-Gen. Sir R.


Broadbent, Colons) J.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Ferguson, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Foot, Isaac
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ford, Sir P. J
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Ganzoni, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Christie, J. A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gillett, George M.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Glassey, A. E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Held, David D. (County Down)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Remer, John R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M f.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Sir F.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Mitchell, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Millar, J. D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Rosbotham, D. s. T.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ross, Ronald D.
Train, J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison, W. S. (GIOS., Cirencester)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Scott James
Wells, Sydney R.


O'Connor, T. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
White, H. G.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Womersley, W. J.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smithers, Waldron
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerset, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, A, A. (Windsor)
Sir Victor Warrender and Major


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Sir George Hennessy.


Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, Capt. w. G. (Portsmouth, c.)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Palin, John Henry


Arnott, John
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Palmer, E. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Haycock, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Herriotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Barr, James
Hint, W. (Bradford, South)
Price, M. P.


Batey, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Isaacs, George
Romeril, H. G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Shield, George William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shillaker, J. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawson, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Burgess, F. Q,
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Charleton, H. C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Clarke, J. S.
Longden, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McElwee, A.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McEntee, V. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Vaughan, David


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McShane, John James
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watkins, F. C.


Day, Harry
Mansfield, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Marcus, M.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dukes, C
Marley, J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Duncan, Charles
Mathers, George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Ede, James Chuter
Messer, Fred
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Egan, W. H.
Middleton, G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Freeman, Peter
Mills, J. E.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Milner. Major J.



Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Ralph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gould, F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Mort, D. L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Muggeridge, H. T.



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This Supplementary Estimate passed the Committee stage without any discussion, and on this occasion I do not propose to detain the House at any length upon the
points which it raises. It should be understood, as I explained earlier, that the difficulty with which we are faced in part in connection with the finances of the Road Fund is very much related to the raids upon the Road Fund made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, it must be remembered that the income of the Road Fund is burdened with certain charges, including a large fixed sum comprising the rural road grant the block grant or the Exchequer Contributions Account, so that the money which is left for the ordinary purposes of the Road Fund is limited. The Financial Secretary, on Clause 20 of the Finance Bill, said that he condemned wholeheartedly the policy of borrowing which had commenced with this fund, and, of course, the Supplementary Estimate is brought up because the powers given under the Finance Act to borrow to the extent of £10,000,000 are being repealed under the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which the House has been considering.
The Financial Secretary said that it was as wrong to borrow for this fund as it was to borrow for the purposes of unemployment benefit. I should have thought that there was a distinction between expenditure upon unemployment benefit and expenditure upon this work, which is largely capital in character. The virtue of the Financial Secretary is only skin deep. What he is really doing and what the Government are doing is wringing money out of the taxpayer from current taxes, which they will advance to the Road Fund, and which the Road Fund will have to repay in due course, presumably with interest charged, although that is not made clear in the details. The Supplementary Estimate says that the advances are repayable out of the future income of the Road Fund. What does it mean? It means that in this financial year we are going to raise by taxation an additional £7,000,000 and advance it to the Road Fund, and the Road Fund must pay it back; so that, instead of borrowing in the ordinary way, we are going to lift the money from the taxpayers of the country in the current revenue year, advance it to the Road Fund, and have it paid back if the Road
Fund is able to do it. What is that but borrowing under another name and by another process, and that process a little more painful to the taxpayer today, because, by borrowing, we could have spread it over a further number of years so far as the liability of the taxpayer is concerned?
We shall divide against this Motion to indicate our dissatisfaction with the method of finance which has been adopted. I suppose that on this occasion, as on previous occasions, we shall find Liberal Members deliberately voting against a method of financing road works for which they stood at the General Election. In vain have we asked them to state how they defend this action of the Government, which is such a flat and direct contradiction of the virtues of borrowing which they impressed upon the Labour Government time and time again, and on which they fought at the last election. I suppose this little swallow of Liberal principles to-night will be a minor swallow compared with the vast swallowing of political principle which, we understand, the Liberal Ministers have already undertaken in the interests of their seats and in the interests of their offices. Therefore, this relatively minor straining at the gnat to-night is small compared with the bigger swallowing and the bigger straining which are to be imposed upon them by their predominant associates. In the Division which will follow we shall remember that members of the Liberal party, who a few months ago were condemning the Labour Government because they would not borrow £200,000,000 for road and bridge purposes, will now support their Tory masters—and they are their Tory masters—in reversing the decision of the Labour Government not to borrow £200,000,000, and in borrowing the humble sum of £10,000,000. The Division will witness a triumph of the Tories over the Liberals and the humiliation of the Liberals in the presence of their Tory masters, who are going to control them electorally and politically as far as their future is concerned.

Mr. PYBUS: When one has to introduce an Estimate which is full of figures, dull and difficult to understand, it is a pleasure to follow one's predecessor, who is determined to embroider his speech with a certain amount of political swan
song. The right hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him have taken upon themselves the office of tipsters. Time will show whose swan song it is. In introducing this Supplementary Estimate —I apologise for coming down to such mundane things—we shall gain nothing by referring to the raids which were made on the Road Fund so long ago. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman into whose shoes I have stepped—such as they are—and I could wish that we had now the odd millions which have been removed, as I have always been very enthusiastic about road and transport matters, but on that point we might let bygones be bygones.
In introducing this Supplementary Estimate, I should like to clear up a confusion which seems to exist in certain parts of the House between the Supplementary Estimate of £7,000,000 for the current year and the figure of £7,800,000, which has been fixed by the Government as the amount by which Road Fund expenditure is to be reduced in the next financial year. Hon. Members are confusing these two figures. The figure under discussion this evening, £7,000,000, is not cut, it is a Vote, the amount of money which we require to carry on road works. The figure of £7,800,000 is in another category and represents the amount which the Government have fixed as the amount of the reduction in the expenditure in the next financial year.
In Section 36 of the first Finance Act of 1931 powers were taken for the Treasury to advance to the Road Fund a sum not exceeding £9,000,000 during the present financial year, in order to meet the estimated deficit on the fund at the 31st March, 1932. It was the intention that this sum should be borrowed by the Treasury, but as a result of the Government's decision that the Budget must be balanced it follows that the sum required to make up the deficit on the Road Fund for the present financial year must be voted by the House as a Supplementary Estimate instead of being borrowed by the Treasury. The sum originally estimated as being necessary for this purpose was £9,000,000. In the light of the economy in highway expenditure which has now been decided upon it is hoped that a sum of £7,000,000 will suffice, and this is the amount of the Supplementary
Estimate for which the Government now ask. I know many hon. Members would like to speak on this Estimate, and in view of the short time that is available I will not occupy any more time.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman being anxious to wind up his speech with such a short explanation for reasons other than that of time, and I should not inflict myself upon the House but for the fact that for two-and-a-quarter years I had the honour of acting as secretary to the all-party Committee of this House, including Liberal Members who helped considerably in that work. I do not want to bring in Conservative Members because I am anxious to make an appeal to Liberal Members and I feel Lat it is no use trying to soften the adamant hearts of Conservative Members. I make no apology for bringing to the notice of the House once again, not the Liberal yellow book, but the book bearing the imprint of the Leader of the Liberal party. I only want to emphasise one line in that famous pledge, which winds up by saying that the plans, already referred to by the ex-Minister of Transport,
will not add one penny to national or local taxation.
May I drive that point home, for one moment. I would not like to think that the Liberal party, when they got their votes at the last election, did not believe this outrageous promise and pledge. I wish to ask them to vote with us in the Opposition, and against this reactionary proposal by their National friends. They may say that since that pledge, two-and-a-quarter years ago, times hate changed. I believe they have, but they have not changed in this respect, that, if all these grandiose schemes were not to cost a single penny to rates or to taxes, the thing stands to-day as it did then. The National Government, speaking through the mouth of the Home Secretary, the prominent spokesman of the Liberal party, acknowledged last week that these plans would accentuate unemployment. Very well, then, if the plans, as laid down in this book, will not cost the country one penny in rates or taxes, why not proceed with them now to relieve the accentuated unemployment? They say, "But the Budget must be balanced! "What
does it matter if the Budget is balanced or not, since the ratepayers and taxpayers will not be charged a single penny? "We must maintain the Gold Standard." What does it matter, since the plans do not affect the rates or taxes. Even if we have slipped off, or been pushed off, the Gold Standard, it is more important, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, said last week, that we should practice economy. I maintain that, since the plans do not affect the rates or the taxes, by a single penny, it does not matter whether we are on the Gold Standard or not. I beg Liberal hon. Members of the National Government—I have no patience to appeal to the Socialist Members—to be true to their consciences. This Liberal book, which I have used to such advantage that I have recently had to rebind it, will, if they vote against the proposals, be a rod that will send them to the bottom of the Bay of Biscay.
A great deal of waste by traffic congestion has been caused by this National Government, which set out to promote economy. In commercial affairs, the waste is spread over a large number of people. It has been computed that in Greater London, at least £25,000,000 is squandered by time and energy through congestion of traffic. Envisage the loss to this country! It is the wrong policy to bring before the House. The number of motor vehicles is now 2,250,000. In some areas, more than 5,000 tons of traffic pass over given places every day. The weight carried on our roads has increased 20 times during the last 10 years. I need not mention the 7,000 killed and 15,000 injured on our roads. That is nothing to a National Government. I pay tribute to the work of the ex-Minister of Transport. He has done his best to make British roads safe for democracy. The hon. Gentleman opposite alluded to his own position as occupying the boots of the ex-Minister—or was it the shoes? I am not sure, because his metaphors were so mixed with embroidery and swan songs that I became a little muddled during his remarks. But he will have to go a long way before he is able to fill the shoes so worthily occupied by his immediate predecessor. I am sure that he himself will be the first to acknowledge it.
A grave misconception, however, existing in various parts of this House is that the roads of Britain have been brought to perfection. While giving credit for all that has been done, any motorist who uses the roads knows that it will be many years, in the case of our second-class roads, before all the thousands of corners, obstructions, and narrow parts can be eliminated and things made satisfactory. Here we have a National Government, more reactionary almost than any Government which has preceded it, taking the step which is here proposed, and being aided and abetted in it by the Liberal party, who were so progressive in September, 1921. I warn the Minister that he, as a member of that Government, in pursuing this policy, is making things extremely difficult for those of us who represent industrial areas. I have been acting as chairman of the County Roads Committee in one of the most progressive counties in this country, although not the largest. It is a county where there is a Labour majority, which speaks for its intelligence. We have been complimented by the Minister of Transport on our zeal. Although our industrial areas are sorely distressed and we have found it difficult to get the shilling rate which was our contribution in relation to the splendid grants approved by the Labour Government, we have been able to do much. We have not, it is true, been able to put in all the work that we would have liked, but as regards our 15,000 unemployed we have kept the wheels turning. Men have come to my house hundreds of times, often before breakfast, begging me to exercise my influence to get them work. Some have sent their wives early in the morning to plead for them. They have shown intense eagerness to get the work and our committees have been able to select just a few here and there for employment on these schemes, but, as I say, that kept the wheels turning. These men carried on while they had any hope of employment, while they had that hope which
Springs eternal in the human breast
they kept going and we were able to say to them: "Wait a while, your turn will come." Now you are destroying their chance of that turn. You are stopping the wheels. Mark my words—much as I love peace and much as I advocate peace, I come from South Wales, where the material is
very inflammable. Our people are religiously minded. A spark will start a flame of revival or a flame of revolution, and this National Government is the greatest ally to Communism that we have had for many years. I beg of the Liberals who are present and of the Minister himself to save us who have these responsibilities from having to deal with this difficult situation. If it does arise, through you and you alone, sitting on those Government benches, the blood will be on your heads.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I wish to obtain from the Minister a, statement of his intentions with regard to the Humber Bridge, but before doing so I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) on being one of the very few whom I have come across recently who have shown any satisfaction or pleasure with the late Government. I want to ask the Minister whether any of the £7,000,000 which is being asked for now is to be earmarked for commencing the construction of that great work which has been designed across the Humber. The Bill giving authority to construct that bridge was passed without a Division in this House, and it will show a rather lamentable lack of continuity of policy if nothing is done to further that great work now. A very large sum of money has been spent on the project already. When the idea was first brought before the late Minister of Transport, not only did he, to use a colloquialism, jump at the idea, but he offered a very large sum of money to further the scheme.
That Bill not only obtained its Third Reading in this House without a Division, but it was subjected to the most searching criticism in the Private Bill Committee, from which it emerged triumphantly. It was decided on all hands that it was a most necessary work and one upon which the funds obtained by the taxation of road vehicles could well be employed, and it is a great pity that that work should now be held up. I wish to obtain from the Minister a definite statement of his intention in regard to this work, and to ask whether it is intended to carry on with it, or whether facilities will be given for carrying over the legislation which has been passed so that what has been spent on legal expenses should not be thrown away.

Mr. ARNOTT: I am very pleased to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), and I shall look with interest to see if it is supplemented by his vote in the Lobby. I doubt very much whether the Minister will be able to give an answer to satisfy any reasonable being that the bridge will be started within a reasonable time. The predecessor of the present Minister of Transport made a generous offer towards the bridge, and his Government endorsed that offer, but it is obvious from the introduction of this Estimate that the scheme, which would cost about £2,000,000, is not now included, and therefore I want to see whether that very eloquent speech in favour of the bridge is going to be supplemented by action. I have no doubt as to how I shall vote and as to what the attitude of my party will be in the matter. The bridge was originally proposed as a mean, of communication between the north and south sides of the Humber. That is obvious. It was undertaken because of the great difficulty of finding employment. I understand that hon. Members opposite have abandoned that idea and think that it is waste of money to undertake work of that description. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman really meant what he said, he will vote with us in the Lobby, and come on our side of the House.

Mr. PYBUS: If hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House representing the City of Hull vote against this Estimate, the effect will be that they are voting against money being spent for roads and bridges. A few days ago we had a discussion about this important project and as far as I can gather from the speeches of the last two bon. Members, neither could have been here or have read the OFFICIAL REPORT. On that occasion I said:
It is now understood that the promoters, after full consideration, have come to the conclusion not to press forward a request for powers to be granted during the present Session, and they appear to take that view that in present circumstances some postponement of the work is inevitable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1931; col. 121, Vol. 257.]
The Ministry of Transport has offered no opposition. This decision has been taken by the promoters, and the elo-
quence used in advancing the cause of the bridge might well be directed to another quarter.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Surely the hon. Gentleman is unconsciously misleading the House. The dilemma of the promoters is that if this Parliament breaks up this Bill will go. They are seeking a Resolution to continue it in the next Parliament or the next Session at the point at which it has reached. That is a different thing from the promoters withdrawing it.

Mr. PYBUS: The point raised by the hon. Gentlemen representing Hull is that the Ministry of Transport has refused to go ahead with the scheme. This is not the case. We are anxious to support promoters in carrying the Bill forward from one Session to another.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether, if the Corporation

of Hull and their associates are willing to go forward, the Minister will provide his portion of the finances?

Mr. PYBUS: That is a purely hypothetical question. We have already stated that in regard to work and expenses incurred with our approval on a scheme which has been suspended, we shall bear our proper proportion of the cost, and that rules in the case of the Humber Bridge.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Whatever the Members for Hull on this side and on that may say, and whatever the Minister and the ex-Minister may say, there are still a lot of people in Lincolnshire who are opposed to this project.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 85.

Division No. 517.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd,Henley)


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Atholl, Duchess of
Dairymple White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (Lot Thanet)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bainfel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Beaumont, M. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Oearman
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Loaker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Blindell, James
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, viscount


Boyce, Leslie
Elliot, Maj or Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bracken, B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ferguson, Sir John
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buchan, John
Foot, Isaac
Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.


Caine, Hall, Derwent
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nail Cain, A. R. N.


Campbell, E. T.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gillett, George M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glassey, A. E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Owen, Major Q. (Carnarvon)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Granville, E.
Penny, Sir George


Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Perkins, W. R. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H,
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cohen, Maj or J. Brunei
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pybus, Percy John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Colman, N. C. D.
Hanbury, C.
Ramtbotham. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G, L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Rontoul, Sir Gervals S.
Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield Hallam)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir victor


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Somerset, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wells, Sydney R,


Ross, Ronald D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, H. G.


Salmon, Major I.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Sir F.
Wright, Big.-Gen. W. D. (Tavitt'k)


Scott, James
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Viscount Elmiey.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Amman, Charles George
Haycock, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Arnott, John
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Price, M. P.


Barr, James
Herriotts, J.
Quibell, D. J. K


Batey, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bennett, William (Battersea, south)
Jenkins, Sir William
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kinley, J.
Sawyer, G. F,


Broad, Francis Alfred
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shillaker, J. F.


Brooke, W.
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Buchanan, G.
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cape, Thomas
McElwee, A,
Stephen, Campbell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, V. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Daggar, George
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Mcshane, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Dukes, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamyten)
Toole, Joseph


Duncan, Charles
Mansfield, W.
Vaughan, David


Dunnico, H.
Marcus, M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
Marley, J.
Wellock, W Hired


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mathers, George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Freeman, Peter
Maxton, James
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Messer, Fred
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Ralph
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



G rented, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [29TH SEPTEMBER.]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1932, the sum of £20,700,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Major Elliot.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March,
one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and to appropriate the further supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next., and to be printed.—[Bill 233.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.